Agenda Workshop 01-11-00CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA - CITY COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING - JANUARY 11, 2000 - 6:00 PM
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
The City will furnish auxiliary aids and services to afford an
individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in and
enjoy the benefits of a service, program or activity conducted by
the City. Contact Doug Randolph at 243-7127 (voice) or 243-7199
(TDD), 24 hours prior to the event in order for the City to
accommodate your request. Adaptive listening devices are avail-
able for meetings in the Commission Chambers.
AGENDA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
~Visions 2010 presentation. (Sarah Shannon)
~chool Concurrency. (Leo Noble)
Preliminary Design Study for ~ity Marina. (David Miller &
Associates)
~olice Department presentation on new initiatives in the
Southwest section of the City.
Update from ~ity Attorney on Sarasota case relating to
speed humps.
Commission comments.
Please be advised that if a person decides to appeal any decision
made by the City Commission with respect to any matter consid-
ered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a
verbatim record includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based. The City neither provides nor prepares such
record.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
David Harden, City Manager
Lula Butler, Director, Community Improvement Department//f~]'-~
January l0,2000
Vision 2010 Community Forum - Scope of Work
Attached please find the scope of work proposed for the Vision 2010 Community Forum
process. As stated in the proposal, six community forums will be held during the month
of February through September 2000 to obtain input from residents, community leaders
and business owners regarding community concems and needs.
The result of the community forum will be developed into a consolidated report for
distribution to the public and for use by the Steering Committee. We hope this process
will produce an action plan that reflects the true vision of the community. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please give me a call.
Attachments/
Cc: Community Development Division
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK
VISION 2010
COMMUNITY FORUM
Scope of Work
The City of Delray Beach will initiate the Vision 2010 Community Forum in order
to create a "guiding light" for the long-term future of the City. The Vision 2010
Community Forum will include the entire City boundaries. Through a continued
public meeting process, residents, community leaders and business owners will
be given the opportunity to identify issues, needs and concerns to provide input
for future growth and development within the City. Several steps will be initiated
to encourage cooperative planning among all stakeholders.
Community Forum- Step 1
Needs Assessment: The first formal step will involve the organization of six
community forums throughout the City of Delray Beach to obtain input from
residents regarding community concerns and needs. In addition, key staff
members will make presentations outlining proposed capital projects within each
community. The Consultant will describe how the information coming from the
community forums will be integrated into the visioning process to be held later in
the year. The needs and concerns that are identified during each community
forum will be submitted to provide input and direction for the continued progress
of the Community Forum.
When: The six community forums will be held during the month of February
through September 2000.
Where: The NW, SW, NE and SE quadrants of the City (see attached map) are
the locations to host the Community Forum. The numbers on the map represent
the division of the City, and not necessarily the order in which the forums will be
conducted.
Public Participation: Participation will be open to the public, however the
television news media, radio and Homeowner Association listing will generate
participation. Continued updates and meetings regarding the status of the
Community Forum are planned in order to keep citizens involved.
Community Forum - Step 2
Consolidated Report: The second stage of the community forum process will
involve documenting the needs, concerns and issues identified by all
stakeholders within a user-friendly report. This report will be completed to
identify those needs and issues that were consistent throughout the community
forum process. In addition, all of the information will be given to the appointed
Steering Committee members for evaluation and prioritization at the General
Retreat Session to be held in November.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA
Vision 20~0 Community Forum
GULF STREAM BLVD.
~ .... J i
i r'~ l
I
L
i
L-30 CANAL
ri
LOP/SON BOULEVARD
LINTON BOULEVARD
! I
N W 2ND ST
SW 2NDST
SW
L/NTON
L-38 CANAL
C-15 CANAL
......... CI'TY UMITS
- AREA NUMBER
ONE MILE
GRAPHIC SCALE
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
1999
- - D~GITAI.. BA~E MAP SYSTEM..
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS
CITY MANAGER ~
AGENDA ITEM # W3~ - MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2000
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
DATE:
JANUARY 7, 2000
Previously we supplied you with additional information
concerning the School Concurrency, kindly bring this information
with you to the January 11, 2000 workshop meeting.
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DAVI~I~,~I--I,.ARDE. N, CITY MANAGER
PAUL DORLING, P--,RINClPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP MEETING OF JANUARY 11, SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
The school concurrency program is designed to eliminate and prevent future school
overcrowding. The program's three major components include the following:
Coordinated Planning component: - which addresses issues that each local
government is required to coordinate with the school district, such as shared data
and school siting. These issues must be addressed with the school district whether
or not there is a school concurrency program.
· Financially Feasible Capital Facilities component: which is a School District
program designed to provide enough new capacity to eliminate current overcrowding
and keep up with new growth. This is a School District responsibility whether or not
there is a school concurrency program.
School Concurrency Regulatory component that is designed to prevent the
approval of new residential development in areas where there is not enough school
capacity. This is a strictly voluntary program that must be agreed to by the School
District, the County and twenty-six municipalities.
If the City of Delray Beach participates the following required actions must be taken:
Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include:
· Creation of a Public School Facilities Element
· Amendment of the existing Capital Improvement Element to include the School
District's adopted Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan.
· Amendment of the existing Interlocal Coordination Element to address the
statutory requirements for planning and coordination between local governments
and the School District.
· Execution of an Interlocal Agreement between Palm Beach County, the School
District and the City.
Continued coordination planning with the School District regarding population
projections, school siting, projections for development and redevelopment for future
years, infrastructure required to support public schools, and review of amendments to
the Future Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Longrange/comp/Schoolconcurrency
RECEIVED
£1TY I]F DELARY BEI:II:H
JAN 0 7 ~flflfl
CITY MANAGER
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DELRAY BEACH
1993
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
TELEPHONE 561/243-7090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755
Writer's Dtrect Line' 561/243-7091
MEMORANDUM
January 6, 2000
David Harden, City Manager
Susan A. Ruby, City Attorney'"'~~
SUBJECT: Review of School Concurrency Documents
I have reviewed the above documents and the memorandum from John Corbett dated
November 23, 1999. In addition to the items raised in Mr. Corbett's memorandum, I
have noted some additional areas that may need consideration.
1. Definitions.
Ao
(Page 6) The definition of "Educational Facilities" is more limited than
the statutory definition contained in F.S. 238.011(6). The statutory
definition includes in the definition "secondary social/recreational
purposes of the community".
Question: What effect does the more limited definition have on the School
Board's commitment to building subsequent phases of the athletic facility
at Atlantic High School?
(Page 7). The definition of "Proposed New Residential Development"
includes a statement that the first such approval [of a site specific
development order] shall be examined for school concurrency purposes.
Subsequent approvals that do not increase residential component will not
trigger review.
Comment: I believe that this statement would be better incorporated on
Page 23 in Section V (E)(2), as it is not really a definition but a limitation
of School Board review.
David Harden, City Manager
January 6, 2000
Page 2
Co
(Page 6) The definition of "Florida Inventory of School Houses" (FISH)
states that permanent capacity does not include the use of relocatables
unless converted to permanent student stations in accordance with Section
F.S. 235.061. Further, mitigation is allowed for those development
proposals that don't meet LOS standards which mitigation may include the
use of long term relocatables as permanent student stations.
Comment: The legislative goal in F.S. 235.062 appears to be to reduce
the use of relocatables. Each district's progress in this area is to be
addressed annually. What effect will the use of long term relocatables
have on meeting LOS standards? Does the agreement create an incentive
for the use of more long term relocatables or less?
(Page 6). The Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee
(IPARC) is listed as a term in the definition section with no definition.
Mitigation. (Pages 28 and 29). Mitigation may include new buildings,
renovation of existing buildings, construction of permanent student stations
(which could be long term use relocatables) or core capacity, constructing schools
in advance of the time set forth in five year capital plan, providing for a charter
school, and private school. The mitigation agreement shall be subject to School
Board approval. There is no language giving cities any input in the mitigation
decision of the School Board. There does not appear to be any standards for
denial.
Question: If the mitigation strategy of a developer is the use of long-term
relocatables, must the School Board approve the mitigation? Or may the School
Board deny the mitigation agreement and on what basis?
Remedies for Untimely Performance. There are certain obligations on the School
District in the Agreement. For example, the School District (on page 24) is
required to issue its determination on concurrency within 15 days of receipt of a
development application. If there are repeated failures to timely perform, it
appears that the only remedy is for a city to sue for specific performance. (See
Page 51). (A developer, not a party to the agreement, may not have standing to
sue). The city may have to bring repeated suits for repeated failures to comply.
Although suspension of school concurrency can occur under certain conditions
(see pages 29-34), it would take 33 go of the parties to agree to the suspension.
David Harden, City Manager
January 6, 2000
Page 3
There are limited remedies to force compliance and it will be difficult to obtain a
suspension of concurrency if the School Board failed to timely respond.
Question: Should there be another remedy provided, other than specific
performance, or suspension of concurrency, especially for repeated failures to
timely review applications?
Amendment to Capital Facilities Plan. (Page 16). The agreement provides
certain limitations on amendment of the five year capital facilities program. The
school board may amend the program (with the concurrence of five members) in
the first three years if they make certain written findings. The findings required
to be made are: an amendment is necessary to meet the School District's
constitutional obligation of providing education or necessary to meet obligations
of State or Federal law; or the need for an amendment is occasioned by
unanticipated change in population or growth patterns; or is necessary to provide
needed capacity in a location that has a current or greater need than the original
planned action. There is no limitation in the agreement for amending the plan in
years four or five.
Question: Is the criteria too nebulous? What constitutes an unanticipated change
in population or growth patterns? If a city submits data that the School Board
overlooks or does not use, would that constitute an unanticipated change? Should
there be a limitation in amending the Capital Facilities Plan in years four and
five?
Implementing Ordinance.' (Page 23). The agreement provides that a City may
adopt a local concurrency implementing ordinance. (This ordinance is not
attached to my copy so I am unable to comment on it). If a City does not adopt
an ordinance consistent with Exhibit C (not attached) within sixty (60) days of the
effective date of the comprehensive plan elements, the City will be deemed to
have opted into the County ordinance "which provides review and procedures for
municipal development orders."
I would recommend that the language be amended to clarify that if the City fails
to opt out, County review will be limited to school concurrency issues and no
other aspect of development.
Application Requirements. (Page 25). The school district will use computer
models to project total new residential units by year within each CSA. To
David Harden, City Manager
January 6, 2000
Page 4
estimate student growth within each CSA, a multiplier for each 3-bedroom/ 2-
bath house shall be used, for example.
Question: Will "adults only" housing developments be included in the
multiplier? Will cities have input into the appropriate multipliers to be used?
Dispute Resolution. (Page 39). The dispute resolution process calls for informal
mediation and mediation under the multi-jurisdictional coordination interlocal
agreement (Exhibit D) and if not resolved by informal mediation, then disputes
will be resolved by binding arbitration, with the executive committee of the Palm
Beach Issues Forum selecting the arbitrator.
Comment: The process may be time consuming. In addition, there is an issue as
to whether binding arbitration is the best vehicle for a final determination or
whether a court should decide the dispute instead of an arbitrator. There is very
limited court review permitted of an arbitrator's decision. For example, if the
arbitrator fails to follow the law, there is no review in court. Also, the forum
interlocal agreement provides that any member may withdraw as a party upon 60
days notice (see Exhibit D, Section 7, Page 10). If this happens, what dispute
resolution mechanism applies?
Term of Agreement. (Page 53). Paragraph XIII states that the agreement is
effective for a minimum five years and may be terminated if 75 % of the parties
file a written notice in a 90-day period.
Comment: There should be a set term for the agreement and specific renewal
periods included if such renewals are approved by a set percentage of the parties.
Further, it may be difficult to get 75 % of the parties to agree to termination in a
90-day period, the result being that the agreement never ends.
SAR:ci
PUBLIC SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
Local Planning Agency Public Hearing
DRAFT Interlocal Agreement for School Concurrency
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
betaveen
PALM BEACH COUNTY
and
THE MUNICIPALITIES OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
and
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
III.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFINITIONS ...................................................... 5-8
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY OVERVIEW .............................. 8-13
A. Agreement to Establish School Concurrency ....................... 8-10
B. Required Concurrency Elements ................................... 10
C. Specific Responsibilities of the Parties ............................ 10-13
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ................................... 13-16
A. School District's Five Year Capital Facilities Program ............. 13-14
B. Ten and Twenty Year Work Program ............................ 14-15
C. Transmittal ..................................................... 15
D. TAG Review .................................................... 15
E. Final Adoption .................................................. 16
F. Amend Comprehensive Plan ....................................... 16
G. Material Amendment to the School District's Five Year Capital Facilities
Plan ........................................................... 16
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ........................... 17-18
A. Process for Development and Adoption of Capital Improvements
Bm
Element ........................................................ 17
Process for Development, Adoption and Amendment of the Public School
Facilities Element (PSFE) ...................................... 17-18
Intergovernmental Coordination Element ........................... 18
-i-
Ve
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PROGRAM .............................. 18-31
A. Concurrency Service Areas ..................................... 18-20
B. Level of Service (LOS) ......................................... 20-22
C. Exemptions .................................................. 22-23
D. Local Concurrency Implementing Ordinance ........................ 23
E. School District Review of New Residential Development Proposals .... 23-29
F. Term of School Concurrency Certificate ............................. 29
G. Suspension of Concurrency ..................................... 29-31
MONITORING .................................................... 32-38
Ae
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
Establishment of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) ................ 32
Purpose of the TAG .............................................. 32
Membership of the TAG .......................................... 33
Terms of Membership ............................................ 33
Election of Chair and Organization Meeting ......................... 34
Quorum and Voting .............................................. 34
Meetings open to the public ....................................... 34
Compensation ................................................... 34
Staff Support for the TAG ........................................ 35
Management Reports ............................................. 35
Enrollment Reports .............................................. 35
Monitoring Reports ........................................... 35-36
Program Evaluation Report .................................... 36-37
-ii-
VII.
VIII.
Xlo
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
N. Conflict of Interest ............................................ 37-38
MEDIATION OF DISPUTES ........................................ 39-40
COORDINATED PLANNING ........................................ 40-50
A. The Coordination of Planning and Sharing of Information ............. 40
B. Population Projections ......................................... 40-42
C. Local Government Data Collection ................................. 42
D. School District Data Publication .................................... 42
E. Multiplier Publication ......................................... 42-43
F. Proposals for Development, Redevelopment and Infrastructure required to
Support Public School Facilities .................................... 43
G. School Siting ................................................. 43-48
H. School District Review of Future Land Use Element Plan Amendments 48-50
SPECIAL PROVISIONS ............................................ 45.46
A. School District Requirements ................................... 50-51
B. Land Use Authority .............................................. 51
C. Specific Performance ............................................. 51
ACTS OF GOD AND OTHER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE
CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL BOARD ............................... 51-52
STANDING AND THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY RIGHTS ................ 52
TERM AMENDMENT, WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION .......... 52-53
TERM OF THE AGREEMENT ......................................... 53
INDEMNIFICATION OF PARTIES .................................. 53-54
-111-
XV.
XVI.
MULTIPLE ORIGINALS .............................................. 54
EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT ............................... 54-55
EXHIBIT A- Public School Facilities Element
EXHIBIT B - Tiered Level of Service Exhibit
EXHIBIT C -
EXHIBIT D -
EXHIBIT E -
Implementing Ordinance Elements
Interlocal Agreement, July 1993
Concurrency Service Area Tables
oVo
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
between
PALM BEACH COUNTY
and
THE MUNICIPALITIES OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
and
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
DRAFT-FINAL
I1~2D9
LEO NOBLE
An Interlocal Agreement between PALM BEACH COUNTY (hereafter referred to as the
"COUNTY"), operating through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; those
municipalities who have executed this Agreement (hereafter referred to singly as "MUNICIPALITY"
or collectively as "MUNICIPALITIES"); and The SCHOOL DISTR/CT OF PALM BEACH
COUNTY (hereafter referred to as the "SCHOOL DISTRICT"), operating through the SCHOOL
BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY (hereafter referred to as the "SCHOOL BOARD"):
WHEREAS, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, enables local governments to cooperate with
other local governments and public agencies, including school districts, to provide services and
facilities on a basis of mutual advantage, and to enter into a joint exercise of power through an
Interlocal Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL DISTRICT have
determined that the safe, convenient, orderly and adequate provision of public school facilities is
essential to the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Palm Beach County; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide adequate public school facilities in a timely manner and at
appropriate locations, the COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES and SCHOOL DISTRICT have further
determined that it is necessary and appropriate for the entities to cooperate with each other to
1
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
eliminate the current deficit of permanent student stations, and to provide capacity for projected new
growth; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES, and the SCHOOL DISTRICT recognize
that adequate revenue sources must be available to provide for the needed increase in permanent
student stations; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act requires the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES to adopt comprehensive plans
to guide and control future development; and
WHEREAS, Article IX, Sections 1 and 4 of the Florida Constitution require a uniform
system of free public schools on a county-wide basis, and provide that each county shall constitute
a SCHOOL DISTRICT subject to supervision by the State Board of Education as provided by
general law; and
WHEREAS, Sections 235.193 and 235.194, Florida Statutes, require the coordination of
planning between school districts and local governments to ensure that the plans for the construction
and opening of public educational facilities are coordinated in time and place with plans for
residential development; and
WHEREAS, Section 235.193, Florida Statutes, requires the general location of educational
facilities to be consistent with the COUNTY'S and the MLrNICIPALITIES' Comprehensive Plans;
and
2 )
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
WHEREAS, Section 235.193, Florida Statutes, requires the SCHOOL DISTRICT to submit
plans for public educational facilities to the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES and requires each
local jurisdiction to determine the consistency of the plans with the effective Comprehensive Plan
and applicable land development regulations; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, requires the COUNTY and the
MLrNICIPALITIES to coordinate the adopted local comprehensive plans with the plans of the
SCHOOL DISTRICT; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.3177(12), Florida Statutes, authorizes the COUNTY and the
MUNICIPALITIES to adopt a school concurrency program; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.3180(12) Florida Statutes, requires that prior to establishing a
school concurrency program, the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL BOARD
adopt an interlocal agreement for school concurrency to establish a process by which they shall agree
and base their plans on consistent population projections; to coordinate and share information
relating to existing and planned public school facilities projections and proposals for development
and infrastructure required for public school facilities; to establish a planning process that
encourages the location of public schools proximate to urban residential areas and the collocation
of schools with other public facilities to the extent possible; to jointly establish level of service
standards for public schools; to establish a process for the preparation, amendment and joint approval
ora financially feasible public school capital facilities program; to define the geographic application
of concurrency; to establish criteria and standards for the establishment and modification of school
3
concurrency service areas together with
concurrency management area and the
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
a process and schedule to incorporate this school
criteria and standards into the COUNTY and
MUNICIPALITIES comprehensive plans; mad to establish a uniform district wide procedure for
implementing the school concurrency program that provides for the evaluation of development
applications for compliance with school concurrency requirements; ~ an oppommity
for the SCHOOL DISTRICT to review and comment on the effect of comprehensive plan
amendments and rezonings on the public school facilities plan, and the monitoring and evaluation
of the concurrency program. The interlocal agreement shall also provide procedures for its
termination, suspension and amendment, and include these joint processes in the Intergovernmental
Coordination element of their respective Comprehensive Plans; and
WHEREAS, the COIJNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL DISTRICT pursuant
to their various statutory responsibilities and powers, desire to establish joint procedures to establish
and implement school concurrency; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and MUNICIPALITIES are entering into this Agreement in
reliance on the SCHOOL BOARD'S commitment to prepare, adopt, and implement a financially
feasible capital facilities program that will result in each type of school in each CSA operating at
least at the adopted level of service consistent with the timing specified in the SCHOOL
DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan, and the SCHOOL BOARD's further commitment
to update and adopt the plan yearly to add enough capacity in the new fi_qh year to address projected
growth and to adjust the plan or school attendance boundaries in order to attain the adopted level of
4 ~
DRAFT - FINAL
11/'22/99
LEO NOBLE
service for each Concurrency Service Area and to attain maximum milization of school capacity
pursuant to Section 163.3180 ( 12)(c)2., Florida Statutes.
WHEREAS, the SCHOOL DISTRICT operating through the SCHOOL BOARD, is entering
into this Agreement in reliance on the COUNTY'S and MUNICIPALITIES' commitment to adopt
amendments to their local comprehensive plans to impose school concurrency as provided in Section
163.3180(12), Florida Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, in order to accomplish these goals and purposes, and in consideration
of the mutual obligations and benefits the COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL
DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Parties") hereby enter into this Interlocal
Agreement.
I. DEFINITIONS
Capacity Projects-New school construction or any project that adds necessary
improvements to accommodate additional permanent student stations which may include or be core
facilities needed for the educational program of each type of school.
Consistency- To be compatible with and further the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan Elements and this Agreement.
Concurrency Service Area (CSA)- The specific geographic unit within a SCHOOL
DISTRICT in which school concurrency is applied and measured.
Concurrency Service Area Level of Service Standards- The maximum acceptable
percentage of school utilization as established in Section V. 03) below determined by dividing the
5
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
total number of students for each type of school in each CSA by the total number of permanent
student stations for that type of school in each CSA.
Core Facilities-The media center, cafeteria, toilet facilities, and circulation space of an
educational plant.
Development Order- As defined in Section 163.3164(7) Florida Statutes.
Educational Facilities- The buildings and equipment, structures, and special educational use
areas that are built, installed, or established to serve educational purposes only.
Financially Feasible Facilities Plan- A plan which demonstrates the ability to finance
capital improvements from existing revenue sources and funding mechanisms to correct deficiencies
and meet future needs based on achieving and maintaining the adopted Level of Service for each year
of the five (5) year planning period for each type of school in each CSA, and for the long range
planning period.
Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) - The report of the capacity of existing
facilities. The FISH capacity is the number of smdems that may be housed in a facility (school) at
any given time based on using a percentage of the number of existing satisfactory student stations
and a designated size for each program. In Palm Beach County, permanent capacity does not include
the use of reloeatables unless converted to permanent student stations in accordance with Section
235.061 Florida Statutes.
Inter Governmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) -
6
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
League of Cities- Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. A not for profit corporation
established to promote and advance the collective interest of municipalities of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
Local Governments-Palm Beach County and the MUNICIPALITIES.
Maximum Utilization of Capacity- Adequate utilization of facilities to achieve the
established LOS of all schools of each type in each CSA.
Municipalities- All municipalities in Palm Beach County, except those that are exempt from
participating in the school concurrency program, pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes.
Proposed New Residential Development - Any application for residential development or
amendment to a previously approved residential development that increases the number of housing
units. This shall include any request for any approval of the type that establishes a density of
development and which approves a Site Specific Development Order on a specific parcel of property.
The first such approval, meeting this definition, shall be examined for school concurrency purposes.
Any subsequent approval which does not increase the residential component is not considered a
proposed new residential development for purposes of school concurrency.
School Board- The governing body of the SCHOOL DISTRICT, a body corporate pursuant
to Section 230.21 Florida Statutes.
School District- The district for Palm Beach County created and existing pursuant to Section
4, Article IX of the State Constitution.
7
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
School District's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan - The SCHOOL DISTRICT of Palm
Beach County Five Year Work Plan and Capital Budget as authorized by Section 235.185 Florida
Statutes (1998 Supp.)
Site Specific Development Order- A Development Order issued by a Local Government
which establishes the density, or maximum density, which approves a specific plan of Development
on a lot or lots pursuant to an application by or on behalf of an Owner or contract purchaser,
including applications initiated by a Local Government. It may apply to a lot or lots under single
ownership or a group of lots under separate ownership. It shall apply to all parcels or lots in their
entirety taken together of any subdivision. It includes site specific rezonings, special exceptions,
conditional uses, special permits, master plan approvals, site plan approvals, plat approvals, and
building permits. It may or may not authorize the actual commencement of development. Two (2)
or more Development Orders which individually do not constitute a SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT ORDER shall be considered a SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ORDER if
when taken together they meet the defmition of SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
Type of School- Schools in the same categories of education, i.e. elementary, middle, or high
school.
H.
A.
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY OVERVIEW
Agreement to Establish School Concurrency.
1. The Parties desire to establish a public school concurrency system consistent
with the requirements of Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes.
)
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
2. The Parties agree that the timely delivery of adequate public school facilities
at the adopted level of service requires close coordination among the Parties at both the land use
planning and residential development permitting levels. Further, the Parties agree that new school
facilities should be planned for and provided in proximity to those areas planned for residential
development or redevelopment. Accordingly, to implement an effective school concurrency system
that will ensure that the construction and opening of public educational facilities are coordinated in
time and place with residential development concurrently with other necessary services, the Parties
agree that the SCHOOL DISTRICT must be afforded the opportunity to review and provide timely
findings and recommendations to the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES on proposed
amendments to their respective Comprehensive Plans and on all applications for development orders
which will have an impact on school capacity and the SCIICCL DISTP~CT'$ SCHOOL
DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan.
3. The Parties agree that in order to provide future public school facilities in a
timely manner at appropriate locations, residential development orders issued by the COUNTY and
by each MUNICIPALITY shall be issued and conditioned upon the availability of public school
facilities at the level of service specified in this Agreement, concurrent with the impact of such
development. This issuance of development orders, consistent with the level of service standard for
public school capacity, hereafter referred to as "concurrency", shall be based upon the adoption of
a public school facilities element into each Parties' comprehensive plans that is consistent with all
9
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
of the other Parties' element which shall be implemented by an implementing ordinance adopted by
each local government party consistent with Section V. D. below.
B. Required Concurrency Elements
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, requires that the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES
adopt the following comprehensive plan amendments which shall be consistent with each other.
(a) A Capital Improvements Element setting forth a financially feasible
public school SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan, established in conjunction
with the SCHOOL DISTRICT and the adopted Level of Service Standards for public schools.
(b) An Intergovernmental Coordination Element addressing the statutory
for planning and coordination between local governments and the SCHOOL
requirements
DISTRICT.
(c) A Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) including the necessary
goals, objectives, and policies for the implementation of school concurrency.
C. Specific Responsibilities of the Parties
1. By entering into this Interlocal Agreement, the COUNTY and each
MUNICIPALITY is agreeing to undertake the following activities:
(a) Amend its comprehensive plan to add a Public Schools Facilities
Element consistent with the requirements of Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, and this Agreement
by June 30, 2000.
10
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(b) Amend its Intergovernmental Coordination Element as required by
Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, and this Agreement.
(c) Incorporate the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities
Plan into its adopted Capital Improvement Element and update that Element consistent with the
updated and adopted SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan by June 30, 2000.
(d) Unless electing to be bound by the COUNTY implementing ordinance,
adopt an implementing ordinance consistent with the requirements of the basic framework contained
in Exhibit C, the requirements of this Agreement, and the local government comprehensive plan.
(e) Not issue any site specific development orders for new residential units
until the SCHOOL DISTRICT has reported that there is school capacity available to serve the
development being approved consistent with thc requirements of this Agreement.
(f) Coordinate planning with the SCHOOL DISTRICT regarding
population projections, school siting, projections of development and redevelopment for the coming
year, infrastructure required to support public school facilities, and amendments to future land use
plan elements consistent with the requirements of this Agreement.
2. By entering into this Interlocal Agreement, the SCHOOL DISTRICT is
agreeing to undertake the following activities:
(a) Prepare and update yearly a financially feasible Five Year Capital
Facilities Plan containing enough capacity each year to meet projected growth in demand for student
11
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
stations so that each type of school in each Concurrency Service Area does not exceed the adopted
level of service for each year, consistent with the requirements of this Agreement.
(b) Institute program adjusmaents or adjust school attendance zone
boundaries as necessary to maximize utilization of capacity in order to ensure th_at each Concurrency
Service Area operates at the adopted level of service for each school type for each year, consistent
with the requirements of this Agreement.
(c) Implement the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities
Plan by constructing the capacity enhancing and moderni?ation projects in that program consistent
with the timing specified in the program.
(d) Provide the COUNTY and MUNICIPALITIES with the required data
support the comprehensive plan elements and amendments relating to school
and analysis to
concurrency.
(e) Adopt a ten and twenty year work program consistent with the
requirements of this Agreement.
(f) Maintain and publish data required in Section VIII for the review of
proposed new residential development.
(g) Review applications for proposed new residential developments for
compliance with concurrency standards, consistent with the requirements of this Agreement.
(h) Review mitigation proposals consistent with the requirements of this
Agreement.
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(i) Prepare reports on enrollment and capacity, consistent with the
requirements of this Agreement.
(j) Provide secretarial staff support for meeting of the Technical Advisory
Group and all other District generated reports established by this Agreement.
(k) Coordinate planning with the COUNTY and MI_YNICIPALITIES
regarding population projections, school siting, projections of development and redevelopment for
the coming year, infrastructure required to support public school facilities, and amendments to future
land use plan elements eonsistem with the requirements of this Agreement.
III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A. School District's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan
1. On or before September 15 of each year, the SCHOOL BOARD shall adopt,
and update the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan for public schools in Palm
Beach County.
2. The o,~,,,-,,-,,,.,~,,,.,,.,~ ~,.,.,~.,.,,.,,""°'~'~"~'" ,":-'-~,,~ Year SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year
Capital Facilities Plan shall specify all new construction, remodeling or renovation projects which
will add permanent FISH capacity or modernize existing facilities.
3. The SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan shall constitute
a financially feasible program of school construction for a five (5) year period which adds sufficient
FISH capacity to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS yearly for each type of school in each
concurrency service area based on projected increases in enrollment; which provides for required
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
modernization; and which satisfies the SCHOOL DISTRICT's constitutional obligation to provide
a uniform system of free public schools on a county-wide basis.
4. The SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan and each annual
update shall include a description of each school project ;A the amount of money to be spent in each
fiscal year for the planning, preparation, land acquisition, and actual construction and renovation of
each school project which adds FISH capacity or modernizes existing facilities; the amount ofFISH
capacity added, if any; and a generalized location map for schools depicted in the SCHOOL
DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan which will be built within each CSA consistent with
the SCHOOL DISTRICT's current Educational Plant Survey and with the Future Land Use Elements
of each MUNICIPALITY's Comprehensive Plan and the COUNTY's Comprehensive Plan.
5. The SCHOOL DISTRICT's targeted Level of Service for all school types shall
be 95% to 105% of capacity. Upon achieving the adopted Level of Service, the SCHOOL
DISTRICT shall maintain the adopted Level of Service standards and school capacity shall be
utilized to the maximum extent possible Districtwide.
6. The SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan and each annual
update shall identify the projected enrollment, capacity, and utilization percentage of each school by
CSA and for each CSA by school type of each year of the Plan.
B. Ten and Twenty Year Work Program.
In addition to the adopted SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan,
the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall annually adopt a ten year and a twenty-year work Plan based upon
14 )
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
enrollmem projections and facility needs for the ten year and twenty year period. It is recognized
that the projections in the ten and twenty year time frames are tentative and should be used only for
general planning purposes.
C. Transmittal.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall transmit copies of the proposed SCHOOL DISTRICT
Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan along with data and analysis necessary to demonstrate the financial
feasibility of the Program, to the TAG, the MUNICIPALITIES and COUNTY on or before May 1
of each year commencing after the effective date of this Agreement.
D. TAG Review
1. By May 31 of each year, the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) established
in Section VI of this agreement shall review the proposed SCHOOL DISTRICT Five Year Capital
Facilities Program and report to the SCHOOL BOARD, the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES
on whether or not the proposed SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan maintains
the adopted Level of Service by adding enough projects to increase the FISH capacity to eliminate
any permanent student station shortfalls, modernization of existing facilities, and by providing
permanent smdem stations for the projected growth in enrollment over each of the five (5) years
covered by the Plan.
15
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
E. Final Adoption.
Unless it is delayed by mediation or a lawful challenge, the SCHOOL BOARD shall
adopt the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan and it shall become effective no
later than September 15th of each year.
F. Amend Comprehensive Plan
Once the SCHOOL DISTRICT Capital Facilities Work Program or annual update
has been adopted by the SCHOOL BOARD, the COUNTY and MUNICIPALITIES shall amend
their Comprehensive Plans to include the changes in their next round of amendments.
G. Material Amendment to the School District's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan.
1. The SCHOOL BOARD shall not amend the SCHOOL DISTRICT Capital
Facilities Program so as to modify, delay or delete any project in the first 3 years of the Program
unless the SCHOOL BOARD determines by written findings, with the concurrence of at least five
members:
(a) That the delay or deletion is required in order to meet the SCHOOL
DISTRICT's constitutional obligation to provide a county-wide uniform system of free public
schools or other legal obligations imposed by state or federal law; or
(b) That the delay or deletion is occasioned by unanticipated change in
population projections or growth patterns or as required in order to provide needed capacity in a
location that has a current greater need than the originally planned location.
IV.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
A.
DRAFT-FINAL
11~2D9
LEO NOBLE
Process for Development and Adoption of Capital Improvements Element
1. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall prepare and the COUNTY and the
MUNICIPALITIES shall adopt into the Capital Improvements Element of their comprehensive plan
the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan set forth in Section III, A. 3 in this
agreement.
2. The procedures for the annual update and amendment of the local
government's public school capital facilities program in its Capital Improvements Element is set
forth in Section III of this Agreement.
B. Process for Development, Adoption, and Amendment of the Public School
Facilities Element (PSFE).
1. By June 30, 2000, the COUNTY and MUNICIPALITIES shall initially adopt
the "model" Public School Facilities Element as approved by the SCHOOL BOARD, the COUNTY,
and the MUNICIPALITIES, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A or an
element which is consistent with this Agreement and Rule 9J-5.025, F.A.C. and the model as part
of their Comprehensive Plan.
2. In the event it becomes necessary to amend the adopted PSFE prior to
transmitting the amendment to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Section 163.3184,
Florida Statutes, the local government wishing to initiate an amendment shall request review through
the Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) in accordance with the
17
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement of July, 1993, attached
as Exhibit D to this agreement, which shall be responsible for distributing the amendment to all
Parties to this Agreement for review and comment.
(a) If all local govemrnents agree to the amendment, they shall adopt the
amendment in accordance with the statutory procedures for amending comprehensive plans.
(b) If any local government does not agree to the amendment, and the
issues cannot be resolved between or among the Parties, the issue shall be referred to mediation in
accordance with Section VII of this agreement. In such a ease, the Parties agree not to adopt the
amendment until the mediation process is completed.
3. Any local issues not specifically addressed in the model Public School
Facilities Element may be included or modified in the Local Government Public School Facilities
Element by following the normal Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
C. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
The process for the development, adoption, and amendment of the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element shall be that set forth in Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.
¥. SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PROGRAM
A. Concurrency Service Areas.
1. The Parties hereby agree that School Concurrency shall be measured and
applied on the basis of twenty-three Concurrency Service Areas (CSA's) as described in the Public
School Facilities Element and depicted in the CSA Tables attached as Exhibit E.
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
2. The Parties agree to incorporate and adopt these CSA's and the standards for
the modification of the CSA's as established below into the local government comprehensive plans.
3. Any proposed change to CSA boundaries shall be by plan amendment and
require a demonstration by the SCHOOL DISTRICT that:
(a) Adopted level of service standards will be achieved and maintained
for each year of the five-year planning period; and
(b) The utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent
possible taking into account transportation costs, court approved desegregation plans, and other
relevant factors.
4.
comprehensive plans.
Process for modifying CSA's and adopting them into the local govemmem
(a) At such time as the SCHOOL DISTRICT determines that one or more
CSA's require modification and demonstrate the standards above, they shall transmit the proposed
CSA's and data and analysis to support the changes to the MUNICIPALITIES, to the COUNTY,
and to TAG.
(b) COUNTY, MUNICIPALITIES, and TAG shall review the proposed
amendment and send their comments to the SCHOOL BOARD within 60 days of receipt.
(c) In the event there is no objection, the local governments shall amend
their plans to reflect the changes to the CSA boundaries in their next amendment round.
19
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
5. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall initiate the necessary attendance zone boundary
adjustments for the new schools that are scheduled to be constructed and opened for each year of the
Y".-;c Yet..- SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan. These attendance zone
boundary adjustments for new schools shall be consistent with the adopted .F-;-~-c-¥car SCHOOL
DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall institute program
adjustments or adjust the attendance zone boundaries of existing schools to maximize utilization of
capacity by moving enough students from schools that are overcrowded to schools that have
available capacity so that all the CSA's operate, at a minimum, at the adopted level of service.
B. Level of Service (LOS)
To ensure the capacity of schools is sufficiem to support student growth at the adopted level
of service for each year of the five-year planning period and through the long term planning period,
for each CSA the Parties hereby establish the LOS as set forth below. The actual LOS for each type
of school in each CSA shall be established each year in each CSA by the first student count of the
second semester.
I. Tiered Levels of Service shall be in force pursuant to the attached
Exhibit B. The adopted Level of Service in paragraph # 2, below, shall be attained for each school
type in each CSA by August 1, 2004.
2. The following level of service (LOS) standards shall be established for each
type of school within each CSA by August 1, 2004:
20 ·
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(a) 110 percent of capacity (utilization) as determined by the Florida
Inventory of School Houses (FISH); or
(b) Individual schools of each type within each CSA shall not exceed
110% ofFISH capacity unless a SCS is completed as outlined in V.B.3 below.
(c) 120 percent ofFISH capacity (utilization) (test two), for individual
schools subject to the results of a School Capacity Study (SCS) undertaken by the School
Concurrency Technical Advisory Group (TAG), in consultation with all LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
having jurisdiction within the CSA and the SCHOOL DISTRICT, to determine ifa particular school
can operate in excess of 110% capacity. The SCS shall be required ifa school in the fh'st student
count of the second semester reaches 108 percem or above of FISH capacity, once the Level of
Service in V. B.2 above is achieved.
3. The School Capacity Study (SCS) shall determine if the growth rate within
each CSA, causing a particular school to exceed 110 percent of capacity, is temporary or reflects an
ongoing trend affecting the LOS for the five year planning period. At a minimum, the study shall
consider:
redevelopment; and
(a) Demographics in the school's CSA; and
(b) Student population trends; and
(c) Real estate trends, e.g. existing redevelopment
and new
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(d)
(e)
Teacher/student ratios; and
Core facility capacity.
If the SCS concludes that the school can operate within the FISH guidelines and not exceed
120%, then that school shall be considered to be operating within the adopted LOS and the CSA
Level of Service may be adjusted to reflect this additional capacity. If the SCS concludes the school
will exceed 120% or cannot operate within the guidelines, then the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall
correct the failure of that school to be operating within the adopted LOS through 1) program
adjustments 2) attendance boundary adjustments or 3) the Capital Facilities Program.
3. Any party to this Agreement may propose to the TAG a modification of the
adopted LOS standard at any time. Following a review and recommendation by TAG, the adopted
LOS may be modified by addendum to this Agreement signed by at least 51% of the local
governments to this Agreement and the School Board.
C. Exemptions
1. Single family lots of record, existing as such at the time School Concurrency
implementing ordinance is adopted, shall be exempt from School Concurrency requirements.
2. Any residential development that received £mal approval of a Site Specific
Development Order prior to the implementation date of school concurrency or is exempt from
concurrency under a local government's concurrency regulations is considered vested for that which
was previously approved and shall not be considered as proposed new residential development for
purposes of school concurrency.
22 }
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
3. Any New Residential Development that has filed a complete application prior
to the effective date of the School Concurrency Implementing Ordinance shall be exempt fi.om the
School Concurrency Requirements.
D. Local Concurrency Implementing Ordinance:
1. Within 60 days after all required parties have adopted the Comprehensive Plan
Elements addressing school concurrency, each local government shall adopt an ordinance regulating
the issuance of development orders based on the availability of public schools at the required Level
of Service. This ordinance shall be consistent with the elements outlined in Exhibit C and with the
provisions of this Agreement.
2. The COUNTY shall adopt an ordinance which provides review and
procedures for municipal development orders and COUNTY review and procedures for
unincorporated development orders.
(a) In the event that any municipal government does not comply with D. 1
above by adopting an ordinance consistent with Exhibit C and this Agreement within 60 days of the
effective date of the Comprehensive Plan Elements, that government shall be deemed to have "opted
in" to the COUNTY ordinance in D.2 above and agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions
therein until it adopts its own ordinance.
E. School District Review of New Residential Development Proposals
1. School Determination: The SCHOOL DISTRICT agrees to review and make
determinations regarding applications for school concurrency determinations for new residential
23
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
development and amendments to previously approved residential developments, which increase the
residential components in accordance with the provisions of the school concun'ency requirements
specified in this Agreement, the adopted Public School Facilities Elements, and the implememing
ordinances.
2. Review Application Requiremems: The applicant for a school concurrency
determination is required to provide the location of the proposed development, the buildout of the
proposed development, and the number, type, and size of all the residential units anticipated to be
occupied each calendar year in the proposed development. The request for a school concurrency
determination shall be submitted by either the applicant or the local government, whichever is
specified in the local government's concurrency ordinance. The SCHOOL DISTRICT agrees that
it shall review every application for a school concurrency determination and issue its school
concurrency determination to the applicant and the applicable local governmem within fifteen (15)
working days of receipt of the application. The SCHOOL DISTRICT agrees to log in by date and
time stamp every complete application received for review and agrees that the applications shall be
processed in the order they are received by the SCHOOL DISTRICT. _The SCHOOL DISTRICT
may charge the applicant a non-refundable application fee payable to the DISTRICT. This fee shall
be predicated upon the SCHOOL DISTRICT's actual cost of reviewing applications for concurrency
determinations.
24 )
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
3. The ~- Five Year Capital Facility Plan Will Include New Residential Units:
For purposes of the Development Review Process, an estimate of the annual projected new
residential units in each CSA is necessary. The SCHOOL DISTRICT will use Computer Models
which disaggregate population projections into the CSAs, thereby providing direction and location
of the projected growth within the county. The data provided by the model used shall project total
new residential units by year within each CSA.
(a) For purposes of estimating student growth for new residential units
within each CSA, a multiplier for a 3 bedroom/2 bath house shall be used.
(b) The review ora specific residential development for projected student
population growth within each CSA for each year of the ~- Five Year Capital Facilities Plan will be
based on the development's proposed yearly projections of completed residential units multiplied
by the student generation multiplier for that type of unit for each type of school within each CSA.
4. New Growth Deducted from the Total Projected New Units: Within each
CSA, the number of students "generated" each year of the development's buildout will be subtracted
from the number of projected students from new residential units for each year of this SCHOOL
DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan within that CSA.
(a) The revised Level of Service (LOS), based on projected student
enrollment to existing capacity, will be monitored as succeeding development applications are
submitted for a determination within a specific CSA.
25
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
5. Enrollment to Capacity Comparison for Utilization: To determine the
utilization, the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall compare the new enrollment to capacity within that
particular CSA for each year of the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan.
(a) If needed capacity for the proposed project will be in place or under
actual construction in the first ltlrt~3~ years of the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital
Facilities Plan, the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall use this capacity when determining that the proposed
development meets school requirements.
Co) If the projected student growth from the residential development
causes the adopted LOS to be exceeded in the particular CSA and that type of school and capacity
exists in one or more contiguous CSA's, the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall use the adjacent CSAs with
the most available capacity to evaluate projected enrollment.
(c) If a proposed new development in a CSA which has been used to
provide capacity for a development in an adjacent CSA causes the LOS to be exceeded, the
development in the CSA which used the adjacent CSA with most capacity will be re-evaluated by
using the next adjacent CSA with the second highest capacity. If there is capacity in the next
adjacent CSA with the second highest capacity, projected enrollment will be moved from the
adjacent CSA with the highest capacity to the next adjacent CSA with the second highest capacity.
26
Example of Adjacent CSA Use:
DRAFT-FINAL
11~2D9
LEO NOBLE
CSA'S
18 17
Most Capacity 19
No Capacity 20
2nd Most Capacity 21
(a) The development in CSA 20 was evaluated using the adjacent CSA
with the most capacity for high school students (CSA 19).
(b) Later, a new development proposal in CSA 19 is submitted for
evaluation and there is not enough high school capacity in CSA 19, or adjacent CSA's 17 and 18.
(c) The previously approved development in CSA 20 will be re-evaluated
based on capacity in CSA 21. If the capacity exists in adjacent CSA 21 (2nd highest capacity), the
projected enrollment from the previous development in CSA 20 will be moved from CSA 19 and
added to CSA 21.
(d) The development in CSA 19 will be re-evaluated based on the new
data for that CSA.
27
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
7. Mitigation
(a) Mitigation shall be allowed for those development proposals that the
SCHOOL DISTRICT determines cannot meet adopted level of service standards. Mitigation options
shall be limited to those the SCHOOL DISTRICT recognizes and assumes the responsibility to
operate, with the exception of charter and private schools, and which will maintain the adopted level
of service standards for the first five years fi.om receipt of the school concurrency certificate.
Mitigation options must consider the SCHOOL DISTRICT's educational delivery methods and
requirements, and the State Requirements for Educational Facilities (S.R.E.F.) and may include:
(1) Donation of buildings for use as a primary or alternative
learning facility; and/or
or
(2) Renovation of existing buildings for use as learning facilities;
(3) Construction of permanent student stations or core capacity.
(4) For schools contained in the adopted SCHOOL DISTRICT's
Five Year Capital Facilities Plan only, upon agreement with the SCHOOL BOARD, the developer
may build the school in advance of the time set forth in the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital
Facilities Plan. The SCHOOL BOARD shall enter into an agreement to reimburse developer at such
time as the school would have been funded in the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital
Facilities Plan.
(5) Charter School
28
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(6) Private School
(7) For mitigation measures ~ ~ above, the
developers shall receive impact fee credit.
(b) If a School Concurrency Application cannot meet the adopted level
of service, the applicant shall be allowed to enter a ninety (90) day negotiation period with the
SCHOOL DISTRICT in an effort to mitigate the impact from the development or to appeal the
SCHOOL DISTRICT's determination to the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The mitigation
measures for those development proposals that cannot meet adopted level of service standards shall
be established in an agreement between the SCHOOL DISTRICT and the developer, that specifically
details mitigation provisions to be paid for by the developer and the relevant terms and conditions.
Performance Security for the mitigation by the developer must be posted within six (6) months from
issuance of the development order for which the Conditional School Concurrency Certificate was
required. This Mitigation Agreement shall be subject to School Board approval.
F. Term of School Concurrency Certificate
A School Concurrency Certificate issued by the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall be valid
for one year from the date of issuance unless the Local Government Site Specific Development
Order is issued, in which case, the concurrency shall mn with the Development Order.
G. Suspension of Concurrency
1. School concurrency shall be suspended in all CSA's upon the occurrence and
for the duration of the following conditions:
29
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(a) The SCHOOL DISTRICT gives written notice to the COUNTY and
the MUNICIPALITIES of the occurrence of an "Act of God" as provided in this Agreement; or
(b) The SCHOOL BOARD does not adopt an update to its SCHOOL
DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan by Septemberl 5th of each year consistent with the
requirements of this Agreement.
(c) The SCHOOL DISTRICT's adopted update to its Capital Facilities
Program Plan does not add enough FISH capacity to meet projected growth in demand for permanent
student stations at the adopted level of service for each school type for each CSA as determined by
TAG based on data provided by the SCHOOL DISTRICT.
(d) The SCIIOOL DIS ~'IT'~JCT SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital
Facilities Plan is determined to be financially infeasible based on an evalua6on of all funds available
to the SCHOOL DISTRICT for capital improvements as determined by the State Department of
Education; or as defined by the issuance ora Notice of Intent to Find an Amendment to a Capital
Improvement Element not in compliance as not being financially feasible, by the Department of
Community Affairs pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; or by a court action or final
administrative action; or
(e) If concurrency is suspended in one-third or more of the CSA's
pursuant to F-:zn-belen~. G.2 of this section below.
30
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
2. School Concurrency shall be suspended within a particular CSA upon review
of the data, and recommendation by TAG, upon the occurrence and for the duration for the following
conditions:
(a) Where an individual school in a particular CSA is twelve or more
months behind the schedule set forth in the SCIIOOL DISTPdCT SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year
Capital Facilities Plan, concurrency will be suspended within that CSA and the adjacent CSA's for
that type of school; or
(b) The SCHOOL DISTRICT does not maximize utilization of school
capacity in the time specified in this Agreement consistent with the projected utilization percentage
for each school as specified in each year of the Five Year Capital Plan.
(c) Where the School Board materially amends the first 3 years of the
SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan in accordance with Section III G., and that
amendment causes the Level of Service to be exceeded for that type of school within a CSA,
concurrency will be suspended within that CSA and the adjacent CSA's only for that type of school.
3. If the program evaluations report in accordance with Section VI M below
recommends that concurrency be suspended because the program is not working as planned,
concurrency may be suspended upon the occurrence of 33% of the parties to this AGREEMENT.
4. Once suspended, for any of the above reasons, concurrency shall be reinstated
once TAG determines the condition that caused the suspension has been remedied or the Level of
Service for that year for the affected CSA's have been achieved.
31
VI*
MONITORING
A.
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
Establishment of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG).
The Parties agree that the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan
and the ten and twenty year work programs will be monitored by an independem Technical Advisory
Group (TAG) to be established by the Parties of this Agreement no later than 60 days from the date
this Agreement becomes effective.
B. Purpose of the TAG.
The purpo~ of the TAG is to function as a resource for the SCHOOL BOARD, the
COUNTY and the MLrNICIPALITIES and to make recommendations including but not limited to
the following:
1. The SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan.
2. Ten and twenty year work programs. It is recognized that the 10 and 20 year
work programs are tentative and will be used for general planning purposes.
o
4.
5.
6.
7.
Schools that lxigger a school capacity study.
CSA's.
SCHOOL DISTRICT Management reports
Operation and effectiveness of the concurrency program
Proposed mitigation
32
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
C. Membership of the TAG.
1. The TAG will consist of five (5) members with relevant special knowledge
or experience and shall include the following:
(a) A Certified Public Accountant nominated by the FAU College of
Business.
(b) A General Contractor nominated by the Local Chapter of the AGC.
(c) A Demographer nominated by the FAU College of Geography.
(d) A Realtor nominated by the a representative PBC Board of Realtors.
(e) A planner nominated by the Treasure Coast Chapter of the American
Planning Association.
2. TAG members shall be automatically approved within 60 days of the nomination
unless vetoed by the SCHOOL BOARD, the League of Cities or the COUNTY.
D. Terms of Membership.
The initial terms of TAG members shall commence on July 1,2000 and be as follows:
1. Two Year Terms - The CPA and the General Contractor
2. Three Year Terms - The Realtor, Demographer, and Planner
Each succeeding appointment shall be for a term of three years. Upon the death, or
resignation, ora member, the nominating body will propose a successor for the unexpired term, or
a full term, as the case may be, and will be accepted unless vetoed per C-2 above.
33
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
E. Election of Chair and Organization Meeting
1. At the first meeting of the TAG and every two years thereafter, on or about
the anniversary of the first meeting, the members of TAG shall hold an organizational meeting.
2. At the organizational meeting, the members shall elect a chair and vice-chair
who will serve two year terms. There shall be no limit on the number of terms the chair and vice-
chair may serve.
3. The TAG has the authority to enact their own rules of procedure.
F. Quorum and voting.
No meeting of TAG shall be called to order, nor may any business be transacted,
without a quorum consisting of a majority of the members being present. All actions shall require
a simple majority of the members then present and voting. In the event of a tie vote, the proposed
motion shall be considered to have failed. No member shall abstain from voting unless there is a
conflict of interest pursuant to Florida Statutes.
G. Meetings open to the public.
All meetings shall be open to the public.
H. Compensation.
The members of TAG shall receive no compensation for their services.
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
I. Staff Support for the TAG.
The Parties will direct their staffs to cooperate with the TAG in performance of its
duties under this agreement. Clerical support for meetings of TAG will be provided by the SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
J.
Management Reports.
By July 1 st each year, the School Superintendent shall submit an annual management
report to the SCHOOL BOARD and TAG detailing the status of the SCHOOL DISTRICT's
implementation of its adopted SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan. The
management report will contain reports on the status of each capacity or modernization project in
the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan including any related audits and a
schedule of the proposed commencement and completion date of all programmed activities.
Revisions to projected costs for unbuilt projects and the projected costs compared to actual costs of
each constructed project shall also be included.
K. Enrollment Reports.
The School Superintendent shall submit a yearly report on the first student count of
the second semester enrollment of all schools by February 15.
L. Monitoring Reports.
The TAG shall review the information submitted by the Superintendent and shall
compile and submit a report on the following:
35
enrollment.
actual costs.
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
The accuracy of previous pupil enrollment projections compared with actual
2. The accuracy of previous population projections of each CS A compared with
3. The accuracy of projected costs of school construction projects compared with
4. The accuracy ofproj ected school construction schedules compared with actual
performance.
All reports of the TAG shall be submitted to the MUNICIPALITIES, the COUNTY and the
SCHOOL BOARD August 1.
M. Program Evaluation Report
1. On or before August 1, 2002, TAG shall initiate an evaluation of
the effectiveness of the program. This evaluation shall consider but not be limited to the following:
(a)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Number of suspensions by school type
Duration of suspensions
Ability to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS
Number and outcome of mediation
Timeliness of parties response required by this AGREEMENT.
36
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
TAG shall issue a report on the findings and recommendations to all parties by
November 1, 2002. The recommendations shall include, but not be limited to, suspension and
changes to the following:
(f)
(g)
(h)
(I)
0)
(k)
(1)
(m)
Capital Facilities Plan.
Joint Planning and Coordination by Parties to this Agreement
L.O.S. Standards
Interlocal Agreement
Goals, Objective and Policies
CSA's
Implementing Ordinance
Mediation
SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five-Year SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year
After this, TAG review shall occur every (2) two years.
N. Conflict of Interest
1. General. No TAG member shall have any interest, financial or otherwise,
direct or indirect, or engage in any business transaction or professional activities, or incur any
obligation of any nature which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of duties as a
member of the TAG.
2. Implementation. To implement this policy and strengthen the faith and
confidence of the citizens of Palm Beach County, member of the TAG are directed:
37
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(a) Not to accept any gift, favor, or service that might reasonably tend to
improperly influence the discharge of official duties.
(b) To make known by written or oral disclosure, on the record at a TAG
meeting, any interest which the member has in any pending matter before the TAG before any
deliberation on that matter.
(c) To abstain from using membership on the TAG to secure special
privileges or exemptions.
(d) To refrain from engaging in any business or professional activity
which might reasonably be expected to require disclosure of confidential information acquired by
membership on the TAG not available to members of the general public, and refrain from using such
information for personal gain or benefit.
(e) To refrain from accepting employment which might impair
independent judgment in the performance of responsibilities as a members of the TAG.
(f) To refrain from transacting any business in an official capacity as a
member of the TAG with any business entity of which the member is an officer, director, agent or
member, or in which the member owns a controlling interest.
(g) To refrain from participation in any matter in which the member has
a personal investment which will create a substantial conflict between private and public interests.
38
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
VII. MEDIATION OF DISPUTES
1. The Parties acknowledge that the intergovernmental coordination provisions of
Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, may not eliminate ail disputes between the Parties to this
agreement and such disputes may a_fleet the SCHOOL DISTRICT and the land use planning
authority of the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES. In the case of the negotiation, adoption, and
implementation of any provisions of this interloeal agreement or amendment thereto or with regards
to any amendment to a locai government comprehensive plan or element discussed herein,
COUNTY, MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL DISTRICT agree that those Parties in opposition
shall attempt an informal resolution of the concerns raised. In the event objections cannot be
resolved by the two or more Parties within 20 days or such other time as may be mutually agreeable,
the Parties will submit their disagreement for mediation under the protocols of the Palm Beach
County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement of July 1993,
as specified in Article X therein, attached as Exhibit D to this agreement.
If the mediation process is irretrievably deadlocked after three meetings, the Parties will
submit their dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator will be selected by the Executive Committee of
the Paim Beach County Issues Forum within 15 days after the third mediation meeting, and
arbitration will commence within 30 days after the third mediation meeting. The arbitrator's
decisions will be binding on the Parties, and the costs of arbitration will be borne equally by the
Parties.
39
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
2. Disputes involving differences the between the Parties' population data or projections
shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of this section.
VIII. COORDINATED PLANNING
A. The Coordination of Planning and Sharing of Information.
The Parties recognize that sound planning for both educational facilities and student
growth emanating from existing, redevelopment and new developmem of residential property
requires adequate and accurate data and information and that effective coordination of these two
planning functions requires that all of the Parties have access to and utilize the same data and
information. Accordingly, the COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES, and the SCHOOL DISTRICT
agree to share and coordinate information relating to existing and planned public school facilities,
proposals for development and re-development, infrastructure required to support public school
facilities, and population projections, including student population projections, which are utilized
and relied on by the Parties for planning purposes.
B. Population Projections.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall utilize the University of Florida Bureau of Economic
and Business Research (BEBR) medium population projections for permanem resident population,
which include municipal and unincorporated areas, as the basis for student population projections.
The COUNTY shall convert the BEBR projections into both existing and new
residential units and disaggregate these units throughout incorporated and unincorporated Palm
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
Beach County into each CSA using BEBR's annual estimates by municipality, persons-per-
household figures, historic growth rates and development potential considering the adopted Future
Land Use maps of all local government Comprehensive Plans.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall evaluate the disaggregated projections prepared by
the County, considering the population projections contained in each local government
Comprehensive Plan, and the State Department of Education Capital Outlay Full Time Equivalent
(COFTE) student projections, making modifications as necessary, and utilizing appropriate models
and methodologies. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall develop and apply Student Generation
Multipliers for each school type (elementary, middle, and high) to the projected residential units,
considering past trends within specific geographic areas, in order to project school enrollment,
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 235, Florida Statutes.
All Parties agree to the continued use of this methodology, which has been used by
the SCHOOL DISTRICT since 1996, and, based upon its historical accuracy, consider its results to
be the best available data.
The SCHOOL DISTRICT, the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES commit to
continued efforts to improve this methodology and enhance coordination with the plans of the
SCHOOL DISTRICT and local governments. Population and student enrollment projections shall
be revised annually to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment information
provided by the MUNICIPALITIES and the COUNTY is reflected in the updated projections. The
revised projections and the variables utilized in making the projections shall be reviewed by all
41
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
signatories through the Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC).
Projections shall be especially revisited and refined with the results of the 2000 Census.
C. Local Government Data Collection. On April 1 and October 1 of each year, local
governments shall provide the SCHOOL DISTRICT with the information regarding the Certificates
of Occupancy issued for new residential units. The actual students generated fi.om new residential
units will be used in the data and analysis for the annual update of the SCHOOL DISTRICT's
Five-Year Work Plan.
D. School District Data Publication. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall publish data
concerning school capacity, including the enrollment of each school based on the first count of the
second semester, the actual capacity of each school at the adopted level of service, the enrollment
and capacity of each type of school by concurrency service area. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall
specifically update the data upon meeting the following conditions: no later than fifteen (15)
working days after the annual update of the F-:-,'¢ Ye, ar SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital
Facilities Plan; with the first count of the second semester each year; as new capacity becomes
operational; when a SCS is approved; or as concurrency determinations are issued.
E. Multiplier Publication. Sixty (60) days prior to the implementation of concurrency
the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall publish demographic multipliers. These multipliers will be used to
determine the number of elementary, middle and high school students, based on the number and type
of residential units from the proposed development. These multipliers must be supported by data
42 )
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
and analysis based on existing enrollment for each type of residential unit and will be updated or re-
verified by the SCHOOL DISTRICT at least every five years.
F. Proposals for Development, Redevelopment and Infrastructure required to
Support Public School Facilities. On or before January 1 of each year, for the SCHOOL
DISTRICT's consideration and utilization in preparing its annual update of the SCIIOOL DIS,~ff',dCT
SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan, the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES
shall provide to the SCHOOL DISTRICT a report setting forth the COUNTY'S and the
MUNICIPALITIES' respective projections for development, and redevelopment, in the forthcoming
year. In addition, before January 1 of each year the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES shall
provide to the SCHOOL DISTRICT a copy of any amendments to their respective five-year road
plans, five-year utility plans, and five-year plans for parks, fire protection and public safety and any
other plans they have in their possession affecting infrastructure.
G. School Siting.
1. Unless a local government has or does enter into a separate Interloeal Agreement
relating to school siting, the following provisions shall be followed in school siting decisions. If a
separate Interlocal Agreement that addresses school siting is in effect, the provisions of that
Agreement shall control and this paragraph D shall not be applicable between those parties.
2. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall coordinate planning and site location of
educational facilities with each municipality and the County in which a school site is proposed for
construction or site acquisition within the F-:-~-¢ Year SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital
43
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
Facilities Plan in accordance with Chapters 235 and 163 of the Florida Statutes. This process shall
assist in determining possible sites for the proposed schools and the consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, applicable land development regulations, the necessary existing or planned
infrastructure, and coordination of public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers.
3. Not less than 90 days prior to adoption of the initial Five Year Capital Facilities
Program and any amendments or yearly updates, the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall coordinate with the
County and each municipality in which a school is proposed for construction or expansion under the
proposed plan to determine the consistency of one or more proposed sites with the local
government's comprehensive plan and the availability of necessary or planned infias~c~e and to
coordinate the proposed location with public facilities such as parks, libraries and community
centers. Alternative sites may be proposed by the local government for the consideration of the
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
4. At least 60 days prior to acquiring or leasing any property that may be used for
a school site, the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall provide written notice of the proposed acquisition to
the local government in whose jurisdiction the proposed site is located. This written notice from the
SCHOOL DISTRICT shall include a school site acquisition form, aerial map, location map and
proposed acquisition and construction completion schedule. As quickly as possible but no later than
45 days from receipt of this notice, the local government shall notify the SCHOOL DISTRICT if the
proposed site is consistent with the land use categories and policies of the local government's
comprehensive plan and zoning district and provide comments regarding the feasibility of each of
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
the sites submitted by the SCHOOL DISTRICT. These comments should address the availability
of necessary and planned infrastructure and the collocation of the proposed school facility with other
public facilities such as parks, libraries and community centers. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall
include these comments in their rating system to determine the best overall site for acquisition. This
preliminary notice does not constitute the local government's determination of consistency required
by Section 235.193(5), Florida Statutes.
5. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall submit a request for determination that a
proposed site for a public educational facility is consistent with the local government's
comprehensive plan and land development regulations and an application for site plan approval as
early in the design stage as feasible, but no later than 90 days prior to the proposed construction
commencement date of a new public educational facility or modernization of an existing public
educational facility. The SCHOOL DISTRICT application shall include the items required in
paragraph 4, a site plan meeting the requirements of the local government's land development
regulations to the extent the land development regulations are not in conflict with the state uniform
building code or the review criteria in subparagraph (b) below, any other information required for
site plan review under the local government's land development regulations, and, if in a
municipality, a municipal traffic concurrency letter from the County Engineer. The local government
shall have 90 days to determine in writing after receiving all of the required information from the
SCHOOL DISTRICT whether the proposed site and site plan for the public education facility is
45
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
consistent with the local comprehensive plan and local land development regulations and if the site
plan is approved.
(a). If the local government informs the SCHOOL DISTRICT that a
proposed site is not consistent with the land use categories and policies of the local government's
comprehensive plan, the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall not proceed to construct any new or expanded
public educational facility on the site unless and until the local government comprehensive plan is
amended to make the proposed facility consistent with the local government comprehensive plan.
If the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future land use policies and categories in
which public schools are allowable uses, the local government may not deny the development of the
site for a public educational facility but may impose reasonable development standards and
conditions through the site plan approval process in accordance with Section 235.34(1), Florida
Statutes.
(b). The local government may not deny the site plan based on the adequacy
of the site plan as it relates solely to the needs of the educational facility. The local government's
review may consider the site plan and its adequacy as it relates to environmental concerns, health,
safety and welfare, and effects on adjacent property. Standards and conditions may not be imposed
which conflict with those established in Chapter 235, Florida Statutes, or the State Uniform Building
Code, unless mutually agreed by the SCHOOL DISTRICT and the local government. The parties
agree that the following criteria shall be applied in evaluating the site plan:
46
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(1) The proposed site and education facilities shall, at a minimum,
meet the State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF), plus a ten percent (10%) capacity
flexibility allowance in conformance with the SCHOOL DISTRICT's adopted level of service.
(2) The site plan shall demonstrate that there are no adverse impacts
on sites listed in the national Register of Historic Places or otherwise designated in accordance with
appropriate State guidelines as locally significant historic or archaeological resources.
(3) The site plan shall provide sufficient space to meet on-site
parking and on-site traffic circulation requirements to satisfy current and projected site generated
vehicular demand.
(4) There shall be adequate setbacks, buffering and design controls
to eliminate or decrease any negative externalities, such as noise, from affecting neighboring
developments in accordance with SREF standards, at a minimum. Outdoor recreational facilities,
including stadiums and similar support facilities shall be located and buffered on the proposed site
to minimize impacts on the adjacent properties.
(5) The location of the proposed site shall comply with all
provisions of Florida Statutes, as they relate to the siting of public education facilities.
(6) The following access standards shall apply to the proposed sites
of the specific school types to ensure they are consistent with the local government's comprehensive
plan:
47
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
(i) For elementary schools, special education facilities, and
alternative education facilities, proposed school sites shall have direct access to at least a minor
collector road or as otherwise approved by the local government after determination of acceptable
traffic impacts.
(ii) For middle schools, the proposed site shall have direct
access to at least a minor collector road or as otherwise approved by the local government after
determination of acceptable traffic impacts.
(iii) For high schools, the proposed location shall have direct
access to at least a major collector road, or as otherwise approved by the local government after
determination of acceptable traffic impacts.
(c) Any facility not used exclusively for educational purposes and any
non-educational uses are subject to the local government's land development regulations and such
facility or use shall not occur unless approved pursuant to those regulations.
(d) Nothing herein shall preclude the SCHOOL DISTRICT and the local
government fi.om developing alternative development standards based on mutually acceptable
performance criteria, that would meet the intent of the provisions listed above.
H. School District Review Of Future Land Use Element Plan Amendments.
1. Each local government that is not a participant in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement agrees to submit to the SCHOOL DISTRICT
at least 30 days prior to its transmittal hearing an executive summary of any amendment to the Future
48
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
Land Use Element that modifies or adds any residential designation along with a copy of the plan
amendment and supporting material and the date, time, and place of the transmittal hearing. Each
local government that is a participant in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinate Review
Interlocal Agreement shall follow the procedures of this Agreement.
2. The SCHOOL DISTRICT shall review the information submitted and shall
evaluate the impact of the proposed amendment on the Public School Facilities Plan, the consistency
of the proposed plan amendment with the SCI IDOL DISTP~dCT SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year
Capital Facilities Plan, the impact on the adopted Level of Service standard for public schools, and
the projected timing and delivery of public school facilities to serve any residential development
authorized by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
3. Within 20 days of receipt, the SCHOOL DISTRICT, shall submit to the
COUNTY or affected MUNICIPALITY a written report setting forth the findings and
recommendations of the SCHOOL DISTRICT, and specifically setting forth the capacity, or lack
thereof, of existing facilities or planned facilities in the current SCHOOL DISTRICT Capital
Facilities Program Plan to serve additional students without overcrowding such facilities beyond the
adopted Level of Service.
4. The COUNTY or MUNICIPALITY shall consider the report and
recommendations of the SCHOOL DISTRICT at its transmittal hearing, and if the COUNTY or
MUNICIPALITY decides to transmit the proposed plan amendment to the Department of
49
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
Community Affairs, the COUNTY or MUNICIPALITY shall include the written report and
recommendations of the SCHOOL DISTRICT in its transmittal package.
5. In considering whether to adopt any Comprehensive Plan Amendment
providing for residential development, the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES agree to consider
the factors set forth in the written report of the SCHOOL DISTRICT.
6. The COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITIES agree to abide by the procedures
set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 5 above, in considering any proposed amendments to the Future
Land Use Element of their respective plans.
7. Unresolved disputes regarding the proposed amendment between the Parties
shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of Section VII.
IX. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
A. SCHOOL DISTRICT Requirements.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that the SCHOOL DISTRICT is or may be subject
to the requirements of the Florida and United States Constitutions and other state or federal statutes
regarding the operation of the public school system. Accordingly, the COUNTY, the
MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL DISTRICT agree that this Agreement is not intended, and will
not be construed, to interfere with, hinder, or obstruct in any manner, the SCHOOL DISTRICT's
constitutional and statutory obligation to provide a uniform system of free public schools on a
county-wide basis or to require the SCHOOL DISTRICT to confer with, or obtain the consent of the
COUNTY or the MUNICIPALITIES, as to whether that obligation has been satisfied. Further, the
50
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL DISTRICT agree that this Agreement is not
intended and will not be construed to impose any duty or obligation on the COUNTY for the
SCHOOL DISTRICT's constitutional or statutory obligation. The COUNTY and the
MUNICIPALITIES also acknowledge that the SCHOOL DISTRICT's obligations under this
Agreement may be superseded by state or federal court orders or other state or federal legal
mandates.
B.
Land Use Authority
The Parties specifically acknowledge that each local government is responsible for
approving or denying comprehensive plan amendments and development orders within its own
jurisdiction. Nothing herein represents or authorizes a transfer of this authority to any other party.
C. Specific Performance.
The COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL DISTRICT shall have the
right to petition the Circuit Court for the Fii~eenth Judicial Circuit for the State of Florida for specific
performance of any and all of the provisions of this Agreement.
X. ACTS OF GOD AND OTHER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE
CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL BOARD
The COUNTY and the MLrNICIPALITIES acknowledge that the SCHOOL DISTRICT, in
its operation of the public school system, is subject to events, circumstances, and external forces and
authorities beyond its control. Examples are hurricanes or other natural disasters which destroy
school facilities, other emergency situations affecting the operation of the public school system, state
court judgments concerning the SCHOOL DISTRICT's State Constitutional or Statutory obligation
51
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
to provide a uniform system of free public schools, and school desegregation orders or compliance
agreements involving Federal Courts or the Office of Civil Rights, United. States Department of
Education. Such events or actions may prevent the SCHOOL DISTRICT from complying with the
provisions of this Agreement and may require the SCHOOL DISTRICT to deviate from or modify
the SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan agreed to and approved by the
COUNTY, the MLrNICIPALITIES and the SCHOOL DISTRICT. The COUNTY and the
MUNICIPALITIES hereby agree that such noncompliance, deviations, or modifications will not be
deemed a violation of this Agreement and that the provisions of suspension will pertain to those
OCCUI'I~BCeS.
XI. STANDING AND THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY RIGHTS
The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that it is not the intent of any party to this
Agreement to confer any rights on any persons or entities other than the Parties to this Agreement.
No person or entity not a party to this Agreement shall have any claim or cause of action against
either the COUNTY, the MUNICIPALITIES or the SCHOOL DISTRICT for the failure of any party
to perform in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement except as may be provided by law.
XII. TERM AMENDMENT, WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION
__ 1- ~. -'_ __,--2' .'_~ ~. ~.1. 1 A
--..1..1-'&;------! _t~._._ /~,~. ..... .. ..... 1 .......... .'_--..1 ___-.*-. -- .'---- -- ..
52
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
~.A. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of 51% of the Parties.
~.B. Any party that is no longer required by law to be a party to this Agreement may with
draw from the Agreement by sending written notice to the other parties to the Agreement and the
Department of Community Affairs (or its successor agency) at least sixty (60) days prior to the
effective date of the withdrawal.
4.C. This Agreement may be terminated by 75% of the parties filing a written notice of
termination with the other parties within any ninety (90) day period. The Agreement shall
immediately be terminated upon the filing of the written notice by the last required party.
XIII. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT shall be effective for a minimum of five (5) years bom the effective date
and thereafter may be terminated only in accordance with Section XII.
XIV. INDEMNIFICATION OF PARTIES
-lx. A. The SCHOOL DISTRICT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the other parties
to this Agreement against any third party claim, liability, lawsuit, and damage award arising out of
the performance of this Agreement for any acts, failure to act, or decisions of the SCHOOL
DISTRICT that are totally within the purview of the SCHOOL DISTRICT or are the responsibility
of the SCHOOL DISTRICT under this Agreement. Acts or decisions of the SCHOOL DISTRICT
include, but are not limited to, items relating to school attendance boundaries, providing adequate
capacity for new students in the five year SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year Capital Facilities Plan,
constructing and modernizing schools consistent with the adopted SCHOOL DISTRICT's Five Year
53
DRAFT - FINAL
11/22/99
LEO NOBLE
Capital Facilities Plan, decisions on whether to accept or reject mitigation, and decisions on
available, capacity in the review process.
-2. B. The County and each individual municipality that is a party to this Agreement agrees
to hold harmless and indemnify all other parties to the Agreement against any third party claim,
liability, lawsuit, and damage award arising out of the performance of this Agreement for any acts,
failure to act, or decisions of that party that are totally within the purview of that party or are the
responsibility of that party under this Agreement. Acts or decisions of the County or an individual
municipality include, but are not limited to, the denial of an application for development approval
based on school impacts after the SCHOOL DISTRICT has informed that party that adequate school
capacity exists for the development.
XV. MULTIPLE ORIGINALS
This Agreement may be executed in ~ or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
XVI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT
-1-: This Agreement shall take effect immediately on the date it is signed by the last
required party and shall continue until terminated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Interlocal Agreement
on the day and year ftrst written above.
ATTEST: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY
ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Dorothy H. Wilken, Clerk
54
By:
Deputy Clerk
By:.
Chair
DRAFT-FINAL
11~2D9
LEO NOBLE
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency
County Attorney
ATTEST:
SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY
By: By:,
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency
Attorney for School Board
ATTEST:
MUNICIPALITIES
By: By:
Approved as to Form and
Legal Sufficiency
Attomey for Municipalities
H'~DATA\WP5 I~OCSCONCRNCY~SECTIONLINTERLOCkILA 1122.BCC
55
EXHIBIT A
Public Schools Facilities Element
See EXHIBIT 1, Page E-l, Under Tab "Public School Facilities Element"
EXHIBIT 1
AJ
Capital Improvement Element, School Concurrency Requirements
REVISIONS: To revise and update. The revisions are numbered below, and shown with the
added text underlined, and the deleted text -' .... ' ....
REVISED ASSESSMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The County maintains a minimum level of service for transportation, potable water and
sanitary sewer, recreation and open space, and fire-rescue. The School District of Palm
Beach County shall maintain minimum level of service standards for public school facilities,
in accordance with the adopted Interlocal Agreement. Th~ , Ill, Ill I ,[, , ,~:--[ .... ,~.,e ~F[l~' .... [~ ~FIA' ~.~'' .... ' I~.~'~ ..... I~l ~.~,
A.,--'.,:.~.A.' ' ..... "---- ':--:'--'~ ' ''" .... d ..... ' ..... TO ensure that the minimum levels of
~v~gl. gl,~llgl I~;;~'.~1 IVI Ul I~r.&l I1 IIIIII1*%.~l Ul I,.~gll Oil I f~,Jlgl
service for these public facilities and services are maintained as new development occurs,
the County follows a Concurrency Management System. The Concurrency Management
System requires all new development applications, subject to concurrency certification, to
submit an application which indicates impacts on the Level of Service for the concurrency
item. The application identifies the impacts that the proposed development would have on
the County's ability, or in the instance of public school facilities, the School District of Palm
Beach County's ability, to maintain the adopted minimum levels of service.
REVISED - OBJECTIVE '1.1
Minimum Levels of Service
Palm Beach County shall maintain minimum level of service standards for traffic circulation,
mass transit, sanitary sewer, potable water, recreation/open space, fire-rescue, solid waste,
and storm water management, as defined in the applicable elements. The issuance of
development approvals will be based upon the County's ability to maintain these minimum
level of service standards. The School District of Palm Beach County shall maintain
minimum level of service standards for public school facilities, as defined in the Public
School Facilities Element. In the case of public school facilities, the issuance of
Development Orders, Development Permits or development approvals shall be based upon
the School District of Palm Beach County's ability to maintain the minimum level of service
standards.
REVISED - Policy 1.1-a Minimum Level of Service Standards: The minimum level of
service standards for a Certificate of Concurrency required for approval of a Development
Order or Permit are established in the following elements:
ELEMENT
Location of Level of Service Reference
in Respective Element
Transportation
Potable water and sanitary sewer
Solid waste
Storm water management
Objective 1.1
Policies1.2-a, 1.2-b, 1.2-f, 1.3-a, 1.3-b, 1.3-d, 1.3-e
Objective 1.2
Policies 1.1-a, 1.1-b, 1.1-c
Exhibits E - I CIE School Concurrency Requirements
Recreation/open space
Fire/Rescue
Public School Facilities
Objective 1.2
Policy 1.2-a
Policy 1. l-a, 1.1-c
REVISED- Policy 1.2-b: The County shall continue to require the applicant for a
Development Order or Development Permit listed in Policy 1.2-g or Policy 1.2-h to complete
a "Level of Service Impact Statement". This statement shall provide the required
information regarding the potential impacts of a development on each level of service
identified in Objective 1.1 of this Element, and this required information shall be the basis of
review for concurrency certifications. For public school facilities, the applicant for a
Development Order or Development Permit which includes any residential component shall
provide a determination of capacity by the School District of Palm Beach County that the
proposed development will meet the public school facilities level of service. A determination
e
by the School District is not required for existin.q sin.qle family leqal lots of record, in
accordance with the Public School Facilities Pohcy 1. l-f, and Capital Improvement Element
Policy 1.2-k.
REVISED - Policy 1.2-e: In determining that the necessary facilities and services shall
be in place when the impacts of the development occur, the procedures maintained in Policy
1.2-c shall continue to consider the facilities and services to be in place when:
The construction of the facilities or provision of services is the subject of a binding
and guaranteed contract with the County, or in the case of public school facilities, the
School District of Palm Beach County, that is executed and guaranteed for the time
the Development Order is issued;
The necessary facilities or services are under construction and bonded at the time
that the Development Order is issued; or
The necessary facilities and services are included in the County's Capital
Improvement Annual Budget; or, in the case of public school facilities, construction
appropriations are specified within the first three years of the most recently a~)~)roved
School Distdct of Palm Beach County Six Year Capital Improvement Schedule
In accordance with Policy 1.2-b, and upholding the exceptions detailed therein, pdor
to issuance of a Development Order/Permit, the School District of Palm Beach
County shall determine that the level of service for public school facilities can be
achieved and maintained. The necessary public school facilities shall be considered
to be in place when sufficient capacity exists in the concurrency service area (CSA)
in which the proposed development is located, or an immediately adjacent CSA.
REVISED Policy 1.2-f: The County shall continue to provide for the issuance of a
Concurrency Reservation for all applications for Development Orders or Development
Permits .... when roadway, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks,
mass transit, e~d fire-rescue, a.nd public school facilities are available at the Level of
Service identified in Objective 1.1 of this Element to accommodate the impact from the
requested Development Order at the time such impacts are anticipated to occur.
Exhibits E - 2 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
NEW- Table 17: The School District of Palm Beach County Six Year Capital Improvement
Schedule.
The new table is provided by the School District of Palm Beach County for adoption into
Palm Beach County's Capital Improvement Element. New Table 17 is shown in the next
three pages.
T:~PLANNING~aJVlEND\99-PSIVeports\CIE SC1119 wpd
Exhibits E - 3 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
Exhibits E -4 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
Exhibits E - 5 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
Exhibits E - 6 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
EXHIBIT 2
SUPPORT DATA AND ANALYSIS
ASSESSMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Language is updated to include reference to the
establishment of a level of service for public school facilities per 9J-5.025, F.A.C., 9J-5.016,
F.A.C., and 9J-5.0055, F.A.C. The assessments and conclusions section is intended to be
a concise summary, so the language change is minimal to reflect adoption of a level of
service for public school facilities. Deletion of a sentence will enhance readability, while not
effecting substance, since the content is contained in Policy 1.1-a.
OBJECTIVE 1.1 Minimum Level of Service and Policy 1.1-a Minimum Level of
Service Standards: 9J-5.025, F.A.C. establishes minimum criteria relating to the Public
School Facilities Element, including adoption of a level of service standard. Following the
direction of the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), the Capital Improvement
Element has incorporated all level of service standards by reference to the appropriate
element. The addition of the reference to the Public School Facilities Policies 1.1-a and 1.1-
c into the Capital Improvement Element Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1-a is in response to 9J-
5.025 F.A.C. and EAR direction.
Policy 1.2-b: Applications for a Development Order or Permit: 9J-5.016, F.A.C., and
9J-5.0055, F.A.C., state that an adequate concurrency management system will be
implemented by the local government. This policy requires an applicant for a Development
Order or Permit, which may impact the Public School Facilities level of service, to obtain
the appropriate approval by the School District. Exceptions are duly noted, to take into
account existing single family legal lots of record which were exempt from concurrency
review; and CIE Policy 1.2-k (amended in 99-2 round), which upholds previously vested
rights. The School District of Palm Beach County is in the process of creating a
concurrency section to evaluate if a development application will be able to meet and
maintain the public school facility level of service.
Policy 1.2-e Concurrency Review Procedure: 9J-5.025.(3)(c)8, F.A.C., provides
information relating to when development can proceed. 9J-5.025.(3)(c)8, F.A.C., states that
if concurrency service areas (CSAs) are used, then development can proceed if the level
of service standard is exceeded for a project, but capacity exists in one or more contiguous
school concurrency service areas.
Construction appropriations specified within the first three years of the adopted School
District of Palm Beach County's Six Year Capital Improvement Schedule are considered by
the School District to be assured construction for that particular facility. In the alternative,
in those instances where a developer chooses to mitigate and provide the necessary public
school facilities, sufficient assurances must be made to the School District of Palm Beach
County to ensure the facilities will be in place/under construction within 3 years after permit
issuance, per F.$. 163.3180(13)(e).
Exhibits E - 7 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
Proposed Public School Facilities Policy 2.1-c provides that the School District shall
maintain the school concurrency level of service through compliance with an Interlocal
Agreement, which establishes the processes associated w~th maintaining concurrency.
The County will be adding the School District of Palm Beach County to the list of level of
service providers for determination whether capacity is available for a development to meet
the required level of service for public school facilities. Please refer also to the Data and
Analysis for Policy 1.2-b above.
Issuance of Concurrency: To be consistent throughout the Capital Improvement Element,
public school facilities are added to the language in this policy listing those elements whose
Level of Service is identified in the Capital Improvement Element. The addition of reference
to the Public School Facilities Objective 1.1 is in response to 9J-5.025, F.A.C. Please refer
also to the Data and Analysis for Policies 1.2-b and 1.2-e above.
Table 17 The School District of Palm Beach County Six Year Capital Improvement
Schedule: Per 9J-5.025(2)(g),(h),(i), detailed revenue and expenditures estimates are
provided to achieve and maintain the level of service by year, for the most current fiscal year
and subsequent 5 year planning pedod, and the long range planning pedod. 9J-5.016 F.A.C.
stipulates that the Capital Improvement Element shall contain a financially feasible public
school capital facilities program which has been established in conjunction with the School
Board. The addition of this new table provides detailed analysis of the School District of
Palm Beach County public education facility expenditures and revenues. The table is
provided by the School Distdct of Palm Beach County, for adoption into the Palm Beach
County Capital Improvement Element.
The School District of Palm Beach County Six Year Capital Improvement Schedule's first
five year estimates are based on the School District of Palm Beach County FY2000-FY 2004
Five Year Plan and FY 2000 Capital Budget, with subsequent longer range projections
provided in compliance with 9J-5.025(3)(b)3. To ensure a financially feasible table,
Certificates of Participation (COPs) financing will be used to balance projected expenditures
with revenues through FY 2003, leaving approximately $500 million COPs authority available
for the purchase of land and construction of new schools additions or replacements.
Longer range projections are conservative, based on increasing growth rate of costs with
revenue growth rates steady based on existing revenue sources only. While revenue growth
rates may possibly increase or new revenue sources may become available, if for example,
voters approve alternative revenue sources such as sales tax revenue or general obligation
bonds, these options are not used in the long range planned revenue projections. This
conservative approach is warranted in order to better account for an uncertain future.
Another example concerns effort index grants, which per section 235.186 F.S., are grants
from state funds to assist School Districts that have a need to build new student stations
and associated core facility space to meet student membership requirements in K-12.
While these grants will become available to the School Distdct of Palm Beach County in the
future, the timing of their availability is not certain, and therefore they are not used as a
revenue source in Table 17. Effort index grants are only mentioned as a possible altemative
to approximately $23 million or more of an existing revenue source: COPs. Therefore, to
summarize, only existing, known revenue sources are used in Table 17.
Finally, demographic information and enrollment projections are also provided for in
Appendix E, titled, "The School District of Palm Beach County FY 2000-FY2004 Five Year
Exhibits E - 8 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
Plan and FY 2000 Capital Budget." Revenue sources are also discussed in Appendix E,
along with alternative funding options, w~th acronyms usually defined either in Chapter 1 or
the Glossary of Terms at the end of the document. Please note that Appendix E is provided
as backup material to Public School Concurrency staff reports.
In addition to the 9J-5 requirements addressed above, related Data and Analysis
considerations and brief summary
Per 9J-5.025(2)(g),(h) and (i), Table 17, titled, "The School District of Palm Beach County
Six Year Capital Improvement Schedule, is added to the Palm Beach County Capital
Improvement Element", providing for detailed revenue and expenditures by year, for the
most current fiscal year and subsequent 5 year planning pedod and the long range planning
period, to achieve and maintain the level of service for public school facilities.
Please also refer to the Concurrency Service Area Tables contained in the Public School
Facilities Element, which incorporate the current and projected enrollment, capacity, and
school utilization, as well as specify the type of capital improvement, per 9J-5.025(b),
(c),(d),(e). The Concurrency Service Area Tables address each individual school and
indicate school type.
Per 9J-5.016 (1), the Capital Improvement Element Table 17, in conjunction with the Public
School Facilities Element Objectives 1,2 and 3, and associated policies, identifies public
school facility needs located within Palm Beach County. The Capital Improvement Element
Table 17 is based upon existing revenue sources and funding mechanisms available for
capital improvement financing.
Per 9J-5.016(2), current local practices that guide the timing and location of construction,
extension or increases in capacity of each public facility are discussed in the Public School
Facilities Element Objective 2.2 and associated policies, with concomitant costs and fiscal
associations to meet existing deficiencies and future needs outlined in Table 17 of the
Capital Improvement Element.
Per 9J-5.025(2)(j) and 9J-5.016(2)(d), CIE Table 17, titled "The School District of Palm
Beach County Six Year Capital Improvement Schedule", shows how school concurrency
costs will be met. Issues related to cost sharing are addressed through:
(1) the Florida Administrative Code, section 235.26(1)(a), State Uniform Building Code for
Public Education, Uniform Building Code, which exempts Public Educational Facilities
construction from County and municipal building permit assessments and impact or service
availability fees for example (in this case, the cost sharing is in terms of revenue foregone);
as well as
(2) case-by case contract provisions as provided for in CIE policy 1.2-e(1), which refers to
a binding and guaranteed contract with the School District of Palm Beach County, that is
executed and guaranteed for the time the Development Order is issued; and finally,
(3) CIE Table17, which provides a financially feasible capital improvement program for
public schools, and other CIE Tables which detail County expenditures and revenues.
Table 17 summarizes more specific detailed project information supplied in Appendix E, The
School District of Palm Beach County FY 200-FY2004 Five Year Plan and FY 2000 Capital
Budget. The specific project information includes operating and maintenance costs.
Exhibits E - 9 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
The impact of new or improved public educational facilities on the provision of infrastructure,
along with the use of timing and location of capital improvements to pubhc facilities to
support efficient land development ~s addressed in the Public School Fac~libes Element
Objective 2.2 and associated policies.
An assessment of the local government's ability to finance capital improvements based on
anticipated population and revenues is provided in Table 17, based on the population
projections cited in Appendix E, titled, "The School District of Palm Beach County FY 200-
FY2004 Five Year Plan and FY 2000 Capital Budget", and projections of expenditures and
existing revenue sources.
Per 9J-5.016(3), the Capital Improvement Element Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1, in
conjunction with Table 17, provide the means to meet the needs for the construction of
public school facilities necessary to meet existing deficiencies, as well as accommodate
future growth and replace obsolete orwom-out facilities. The Capital I .mprovement Element
Policies 1.2-b, 1.2-e and 1.2-f ensure coordination of land use decisions which maintain the
adopted level of service standards and meet existing and future public school facility needs.
Per 9J-5.0055, the Capital Improvement Element Policies 1.2-b, 1.2-e, and 1.2-f, in
conjunction with the Concurrency Section the School Distdct of Palm Beach County is in
the process of creating, will establish and implement the Public School Concurrency
management system which monitors and ensures adherence to the adopted level of service
standards.
Exhibits E - 10 CIE School Concurrency Requirements
EXHIBIT B
Tiered Level of Service Table
See EXHIBIT 1, Pages E-3 to E-5, Under Tab "Public School Facilities
Element"
EXHIBIT C
Implementing Ordinance Elements
Not Available Yet
EXHIBIT D
Interiocal Agreement, July 1993:
Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum
Interlocal Agreement
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES COORDINATION FORUM
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Interlocal Agreement, dated the 1st day of October, 1993,
entered into by and among the various parties executing this
Agreement, each one constituting a public agency as defined in Part
I of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and each one a participant in
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal
Agreement;
WITNESS ETH:
~HEREAS, the creation of the Multi-Jurisdictional Issues
Coordination Forum (hereinafter "Forum") will facilitate the
identification and possible resolution of multi-jurisdictional
issues by providing a vehicle for consensus building through the
research of issues and the debate of same; and
WHEREAS, the Forum can provide direction on the resolution of
a multi-jurisdictional issue and the implementation of a program of
multi-jurisdictional significance; and
WHEREAS, the Forum may also determine a countywide position
relative to multi-jurisdictional issues and growth management needs
at the County, Regional, and State level; and
WHERE~S, the Forum would also serve as a vehicle for
clarification of and technical assistance in understanding Regional
and State initiatives; and
WHEREAS, the Forum would also be an outlet to provide
constructive critiquing of county legislative proposals having
countywide implications; and
WHEREAS, the Forum over time may provide the initiative for
802.
programs and policies to address items of multi-jurisdictional
significance.
NOW, THERZFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, it is mutually agreed and understood, by and
among the undersigned parties as follows:
~TICLE I. TXTLE
This Agreement shall be known and may be cited as the "Multi-
Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement."
ARTICLE II. PURPOSE
The primary purpose of this Agreement is to establish a Forum
that will provide a vehicle for communication and education between
and among the various local governments and service providers
through the receipt and review of reports from ad-hoc committees;
through presentations on items of multi-jurisdictional impact or
concern; and through the review of actions taken by the Executive
Committee, as established herein.
ARTICLE III.
The following definitions shall apply to this Agreement:
"Associate Forum Member" means a non-voting member of the
Forum as established in Article IV, Section 2.
"Clearinghouse" means the Clearinghouse established in the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal
Agreement.
"Comprehensive Plan ~mendment Coordinated Review Interlocal
Agreement" means that Agreement dated October 1, 1993, which
created the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review
2
Process.
"Executive Committee- means the Executive Committee
established in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review
Interlocal Agreement.
"Forum Member" means a local government or service provider
who has joined the Forum through this Agreement.
"Local Gover-ment- means the incorporated cities, villages and
towns within Palm Beach County and the County of Palm Beach.
"Service Providers" means the Palm Beach County School Board,
the South Florida Water Management District, and all independent
special districts located in whole or in part in Palm Beach County
which provide services required to be addressed in comprehensive
plans by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP
Sect£on 1. Forum Members
Each and every local government and service provider who has
executed this Agreement by October 1, 1993, or who has subsequently
entered into this Agreement by execution of a unilateral Membership
Agreement in such form as the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit
"A", shall be a member of the Forum. In order to become a member,
a local government or service provider must first be a participant
in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Process
through the Comprehensive PlanAmendment Coordinated Review Process
Interlocal Agreement. Each Forum member shall designate a
representative to exercise its responsibilities in the Forum. Each
Forum member may also designate an alternate representative who
( 3
shall act when the regular representative is not in attendance.
Section 2. Associate Forum Members
Any person or entity approved by the Executive Committee may
become an Associate Forum Member. Associate Forum Members shall be
treated in the same manner as Forum Members except that they do not
have the power to vote.
Section 3. Membership Fees
A. There shall be no membership fee for Forum Members
for the first year. The Executive Committee may establish such a
fee effective after October 1, 1994.
B. There shall be a $200.00 annual membership fee for
Associate Forum Members. The Executive Committee may change the
amount of this fee.
Section 4. Membership Obliqations
All Forum Members and Associate Forum Members agree to provide
technical assistance requested by the Executive Committee and any
ad-hoc committee established pursuant to this Agreement.
ARTICLE V. FORUM POWERS AND DUTIES
Section 1. Powers
The Forum may exercise the following powers:
A. Refer an item of potential multi-jurisdictional
significance to the Executive Committee for
discussion.
B. Veto an action of the Executive Committee taken
pursuant to Article VIII of this Agreement;
C. Adopt the minority opinion on an issue when the
Executive Committee has issued both a majority
opinion and a minority opinion; and
D. Ratify or modify an action taken by the Executive
Committee pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 C.
E. Establish its own rules of procedure that are not
inconsistent with this Agreement.
Section Z- Meetinqs
A. The Forum shall meet at least quarterly on dates
set by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may
schedule additional meetings provided that there is at least two
weeks notice distributed to each Forum Member and Associate Forum
Member.
B. In order to take an action a quorum must be present.
A quorum consists of 50% + 1 of the total number of Forum members.
~%RTICLE VI. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
~eCtiOn 1. purpose
The Executive Committee shall process issues of multi-
jurisdictional significance pursuant to Article VIII and shall
coordinate activities of the Forum in accordance with and pursuant
to the duties and responsibilities set forth herein.
Section 2. Duties and Responslbilitles
The Executive Committee shall have the following duties and
responsibilities relative to the Forum:
A. Process proposed issues of multi-jurisdictional
significance pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Article VIII;
5
B. Schedule meetings of the Forum and prepare the
agenda for same;
C. Set annual membership fees for Forum Members and
Associate Forum Members which shall be placed on
the agenda for the next Forum meeting for
ratification or modification;
D. Establish criteria for Associate Forum Membership;
E. Create ad-hoc committees pursuant to Article VII;
F. Administer this Agreement, including but not limited
to, preparing an annual budget, overseeing the
collection and expenditure of funds, and overseeing
the operations of the Clearinghouse and ad-hoc
committees.
G. Propose amendments to this Agreement pursuant to
Article X, Section 4.
No enumeration of duties and responsibilities herein shall be
deemed exclusive or restrictive, but shall be deemed to incorporate
all implied powers necessary or incident to carrying out the
purposes of this Agreement.
ARTICLE VII. AD-HOC COMMITTEES
Ad-hoc committees can be created only by the Executive
Committee. Each committee shall be created for a specific purpose
and for a period not to exceed one year unless extended by the
Executive Committee.
ARTICLE VIII. PROCEDURE
The following procedure is to be used for the identification,
definition, and disposition of an item which may be of multi-
jurisdictional significance.
A. An issue of multi-jurisdictional significance can be
initiated by one of the following:
1. The Intergovernmental Plan Amendment Review
Committee if the issue is identified in the "fact-
finding" or "conflict resolution" process.
2. A member agency through a formal action of the
governing body.
3. The Forum through an action initiated by a member.
B. An issue of multi-jurisdictional significance is
submitted to the Executive Committee by the initiator on a form
prescribed by the Executive Committee. The form should require, at
a minimum, the following information:
1. The nature of the item and a statement identifying
its multi-jurisdictional significance.
2. How or why the issue is not being adequately
addressed at present.
3. A statement as to why the Forum is the appropriate
place to address the issue.
C. The issue shall be considered at the next meeting of the
Executive Committee.
D. The Executive Committee shall take one of the following
actions:
1.
Make a determination that the issue is of multi-
jurisdictional significance and recommend a course
of action.
2.Refer the issue to an ad-hoc committee.
3. Refer the issue back to the initiator
direction.
4. Make a determination that the Forum. is not the
appropriate vehicle to address the issue.
5. Make a determination that the issue is not one of
multi-jurisdictional significance and that no
further review or action by the Forum is necessary.
E. The Executive Committee shall present its written report
on the action taken on a submitted issue of multi-jurisdictional
significance to the Forum at the next meeting of the Forum. A
minority opinion approved by at least three members of the
Executive Committee shall accompany the report.
F. The Forum, by a two-thirds vote of the Forum members
present and voting, may either veto the action of the Executive
Committee or adopt the minority opinion issued by the Executive
Committee and direct its implementation. Otherwise, the action of
the Executive Committee shall remain in effect.
G. If the issue is referred to an ad-hoc committee, the ad-
hoc committee shall review it and submit a report to the Executive
Committee. The Chair of the assigned ad-hoc committee may call
upon the resources of Forum Members and Associate Forum Members.
The ad-hoc committee shall issue a report including the following:
1. Clear identification of the issue.
2. Implications of the current situation or course of
with'
8
action.
3. Alternative courses of action and probable
implications.
4. Need for further information, research, and
direction.
5. Recommended disposition or next step.
H. The Executive Committee shall review the ad-hoc
committee's report and take formal action on the recommendations
contained in the report. The Executive Committee shall present the
ad-hoc committee's report and its action on the recommendation
contained in the report, along with any minority opinion adopted by
at least three members of the Executive Committee, at the next
meeting of the Forum. The Forum by a two-thirds vote of the Forum
Members present and voting may either veto the action of the
Executive Committee or adopt the minority opinion issued by the
Executive Committee and direct its implementation. Otherwise, the
action of the Executive Committee shall remain in effect.
ARTICLE IX. LOGISTICS AND SUPPORT
Clerical and logistical support for the Forum and the
Executive Committee shall be provided by the Clearinghouse.
Professional services and advice shall be provided through the
resources of the Forum Members and Associate Forum Members.
~%RTICLE X. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 1. Deleqatlon of Duty
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to authorize the
delegation of the constitutional or statutory duties of the state,
9
county, or city officers.
Section 2. Filina
A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County.
Section 3. Limited Liability
No member shall in any manner be obligated to pay any debts,
obligations or liabilities arising as a result of any actions of
the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee members have no
authority or power to obligate the members in any manner.
~ection 4. Amendments
This Agreement may be amended in writing at any time by the
concurrence of a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the
Executive Committee and subsequent ratification by all of the Forum
Members in this Agreement.
~ect~on S. Controlling Law
This Agreement shall be construed by and governed by the laws
of the State of Florida.
Section 6. Effective Date/Term
This Agreement shall be effective on October 1, 1993, and
shall continue in full force and effect unless all the members
withdraw in accordance with Section 7.
Section 7. Withdrawal
Any member may withdraw as a party to this Agreement after
October 1, 1994, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Chair
of the Executive Committee. Any membership fees, if required, will
not be returned and the member shall not exercise any of the powers
10 :
outlined in this Agreement. Suspension of membership in this
Agreement will occur upon the nonpayment of the membership fee, if
any, established pursuant hereto or for the nonperformance of any
of the terms and conditions of this Agreement by any member. The
suspension will be effective thirty (30) days after date of notice
from the Clearinghouse that noncompliance has occurred. Any member
receiving such notice shall have an opportunity to cure its
noncompliance in a reasonable time. Upon compliance, the member
shall be notified by the Clearinghouse of its reinstatement as a
participant.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the
members as of the date and year indicated above.
ATTESt.:" CITY OF ATLANTIS
, z?;" Cl~y~£erK/ ~lyde Fi -Farmer, Mayor
*BELLE GLADE
A. TTEST: /
· . B. '7ity '~l~rk 0
By: Bi'Ii Bailey, Mayor
*Nothing in thisa~t wLll a~b~rize ~he
municipal authority.
delegation of any legislative
By: ' .' - /_ /~ '
/ City -Clerk~ ~ -- t-' ~i~mith/ayor
11
ATTEST:
City Clerk ~~)
E. F. Harmenin~.~ayor
TOWN OF BRINY BREEZES
ATTEST: TO~ OFCLOUD LAKE
ATTEST:
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
T~omas E./~nch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Village ?erk
\
\
ATTEST:
VILLAGE OF GOLF
Donald H. Gustaf$on, Mayor
CITY OF GREENACRES
12
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
Wi ' ' ch, 'Jr., 'Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
Arlin Voress, Mayor
ATTEST: TOWN OF HYPOLUXO
Town Clerk A1 Merion, Mayor
. 'i:: ATTEST: ~'-
'.% ;:,' :' '"....'" <TOWh Clerk
'..... ,-.-. > :,:,:,'
· .~',c~.'~'~: .,
.-
.~ . ,,,,...
, .,..','T°M' c
,,' :. ' --..":=. :
· ' '" 3-:-' '~i
~TEST :-".'..:: ..'"
-.: :,- .. .:.:'
By°
Town Clerk
TOWN OF JUNO BEACH
Frank W. Harris, Mayor
TOWN OF JUPITER
Karen Go~, tMayor
TOWN OF JUPITER INLET COLONY
By: C~OSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE AT THIS TIME
Nicholas F. Porto, Mayor
13
TOWN OF LAKE CLARKE SHORES
(SEAL)
B , ~_ '~_ By:...
c~ ~ ~' ~o~.~'e',~ .-X: :-...,.:-:,--'~..
Clerk ~~& Rodne] G. 'Ro.mano, · Ma~br
,, '-' ..:..-. : ~ /' ~. ~..:,.~ .
DATE: q" 2 ~" fD .-.''' ':~'-:'"'" '~" """:' c -'. -.-:"'
: '~''''-"
'~ ~;~ ' ~' ~ ~ .e. . ·
~-, ,:".-.%'. ·: ,.. '.' .: ...
· ".::(: ': '-'-5>f4-
TO--TANk.' -~.~,.. .. ~.:v ~,( .
( __.2---~_&...: ¢%:...: .~ :.-...xcr ...
By :. ~~-.t. ...
' R'd~ert A. M&6~d, Mayor
ATTEST:
TOWN OF MANALAPAN
Charleu H. Helm, ~ ~7 Kent Shortz, M.D., Mayor
Town Clerk
ATTEST: TOWN OF HANGONIA PARK
..... "
,t ,-....,,.,.. ,.. ,% //
f , .. _~?-' . ....... ,- ..
Town. . c ,Clerk ......=.:-~.: J.~' .~ ~ t, L %.'-. >~:"'i~ale..: M. Engli~, Mayor
· (~ ' '''~ ---''C' '/' ' ~" ':
'" "- '-.~ '--- :~-~- .=_c .... -".:
·. . ..-. -:~.. -... ,. ~-, ..... ~_',¢ . ..
ATTEST: · .-k.~ ~.-Z :. '.:~;:~.,:,.-t"-T.O .J'IN-~ll~ OCEAN
. - -~ · ~ .: · ~'t.~,~-..
' · - t' · ,%'.' ~ '.,~f .... ~' ~ /"
~ow~ '¢le-:k ~,- ~ Daniel J. O' Conneli,
'9%' · - ' ' . ~, ~*-~.~ ..'~°
'",',..' , - '.
"
Mayor
14
ATTEST:
~City Clerk
CITY OF PAHOKEE
Ramon Horta, Jr.', Mayor
ATTEST
ow~lerk
TOWN OF PALM BEACH
M%--William Weinbu~g,
Town Council Pre/ident
DATE:
ATTEST:
DOROTHY H. WILKEN, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
LEGAL SUFF NCY
By:.,
County ;Vttorney
- ..'{ .- ~., ;... -
ATTEST :. . ~. %1, ';:.
.
PALM BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
By:
R93 802.
CITY OF PALM/BEAC~H~ GARDENS
· 7'/ ~ ;/.
%~/./eph R. Russo, ~ayor,
$:-.,,'r= OF FLORIDA COUNTY O~ PALM
15-~, -.~'' 'L' ,"~ ~
'~, ~-~H-'v%~ C~:,-'.'z~: -.~c-~-
ATTEST:
By: /
Town Clerk
TOWN OF PALM BEACH SHORES
7
Thomas Chilcote, Mayor
//
~x~c~.D on~~..~? /~3 by authority o5 th. Villag. Council
...a.s..~.rovided i4~ ResoIution R93-19.
VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF
PALM SPRI~ ~ ~
--Richard H. Jette,/~or
(SEAL)
CITY OF: RIVIERA BEACH
,/
By:
' Clara K. Williams
Mayor, City of Riviera Beach
VILLAGE OF ROYAL PALM BEACH
~ony M~16tti, M~yor ' ~J '
ATTEST: CITY OF SOUTH BAY
.... _.
/---Sa~l And~r~n,~ce Mayor
16
· .' -,.,' ;j-. ',.
: ',,, .By,~
,,.. :. ......~. %..
A~EST. '
Ma~ -M~. Roberts, Mayor
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
(INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
17
ATTEST:
BOCA RATON AIRPORT AUTHORITY
,/~eo~e./~ - W. Blank, Chairman
ATTEST: LAKE WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT
~ //John I/. -Whitworth, III,
~President
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Lake W th~_~inage District
R~ Dent,
Executive Director
LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL D~
George G. Gentile, Chairman
General Manager
SOUTH INDIAN WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
By:
Or:
~avid J. Be~e~"~e-Pr~sident
18
ATTEST:
Pete Pimentel, District Secretary
NORTHERN PALM BEACH COU~
WATER~.O?T~ OL DISTRICT/'
William K~rslake, P-r~sident '
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SI~FICIEI~ CY
Ken Edwards, Legal Counsel
ATTEST:
Monica Uhlhom, Superintendent
SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH
COUNTY ,~
By:~
(INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
19
ATTEST:
William H. Thrasher, District Director
LOXAHATCHEE GROVES WATER
CONTROL DISTRICT
M~rextith~Fox, Chairman of thc Board of
Supervisors
(INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK}
2O
MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated this day of
1993, entered into by and among
a
(local government or service provider)
hereinafter "New Member", and the various parties e~ecuting the
Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum Interlocal Agreement
dated October 1, 1993, hereinafter "Forum Agreement";
WITNESS ETH:
WHEREAS, a Multi-Jurisdictional Issues Coordination Forum to
facilitate the identification and possible resolution of multi-
jurisdictional issues through the research of issues and the debate
of same has been established as evidenced by that certain Forum
Agreement dated October 1, 1993; and
WHEREAS, desires to become a
Member under said agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IV, Section i of the Forum
Agreement, Forum membership is authorized upon the execution of
this unilateral Membership Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, it is agreed and understood by and among the
undersigned New Member and the members in the Forum Agreement as
follows:
1. Upon execution of this Agreement and upon payment of the
annual participation fee prescribed in Article IV, Section 3 of the
Forum Agreement, New Member will become a Forum member pursuant to
the Forum Agreement recorded in the official Records at Book
No. , Page .
EXHIBIT E
Concurrency Service Area Tables
See APPENDIX C, Under Tab "Appendices"
PUBLIC SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
Local Planning Agency Public Hearing
APPENDIX C
Concurrency Service Area Tables
Cap.
FINAL DRAFT FOR RE VIEW
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH
CITY MARINA
Preliminary Design Study
Prepared For
City of Delray Beach
Parks and Recreation Department
50NW I'~Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Prepared By
David Mdler & Associates, P A
319 Clmnat~s Street, Suite 210
West Pahn Beach, FL 33401
November 10, 1999
CITY OF DELRAY BEACtl
CITY MARINA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
I1
III.
IV
Introduction
ProJect Overview
Initial Design Studies
Community Interface
A. Marina Residents' Desires
B Property Owners' Desires
Proposed Designs
A. Narrative Description
B. Proposed Layout
Appendix
A Cost Estimate
B Traffic Study
C Existing Survey
D. Preliminary Designs
1. Introduction
This study is in six parts, this Introduction, an overview of thc prol)osed project,
copies of preliminary design studies, a review of the local community
involvement, the proposed design, and an appendix providing additional
information
I I Project Overview
Thd)mi))osc o1' this study was to examine the existing conditions at the City
Marina and to make recommendations for physical improvements to enhance the
marina and the surrounding area The marina is located along the east side of
Marine W,~y and' is bounded by S E 1"' Street to the north and S E 2"d Street to
the south The marina currently has boat slips and dockage facilities to
accommodate 24 boats At the south end of the marina is the shore facility
braiding for use by the residents Included within this building are restrooms and
laundry hciht~es, parking, common outdoor space and a trash dumpster At the
north end of the marina is a sewage pump out station for use by ~narma craft The
landscape areas, utility serv, ices, seawall, and docks were upgraded ~d enhanced
approxlmat-ely years ago The current parking for marina residents is
limited to the existing spaces adjacent to the shore facility building and as a result,
most residents utilize street side parking This at times creates conflicts, as the
roadway is not wide enough to provide legitimate street parking and two way
traffic
111
lnitml Design Studies
Four i)rchminary design schcmcs were prel)arcd p~ eviously to idcntil~, possible
utihzation of the existing right of way These initial studies showed various ways
of' expanding the' parking areas to provide additional parking and create linear
park areas The'~e studies were u'tili}:ed as the starting p'oint for a dialogue with
the marina residents and the adjacent property owners. Copies of these studies are
included within the appendix
IV Community Interface
A sci ~cs ol' mcctmgs wcrc hcld w~th both thc Marina rcs~dcnts and thc plopcl ty
oxvncrs to discuss thc currcnt situat~on and idcntl~, possible solutions and
mod~fications x~,luch would scrvc to cnhancc thc area Tbcir mpnt, needs, and dcs~rcs
wcre sohc~ted The format for these meetings was m~ open session reviewing the
prchmmary dcs~gu studies After thc tmtial mcctmgs with each gro(~p, alley appomtcd
rcprcscntatlvcs to provldc furthcr input Subscqucnt mcctmgs wcrc bcld with these
rcprcscntat~vcs to contlntlc rcfinulg thc nccds and desires of both thc Marina rcs~dcnts
and thc propcrty owners
A hst ol'tbosc nccds and dcs,'cs is provided bcloxv Tlus list should not be consldcrcd
all-mcluslvc as additional ~tcms may bccomc apparent during refinement of thc dcsign
Marina Rcsldcnts ltcms
parking spaces and arrangcmcnt
parking _sp.acc locations
boat shp privacy (lack ol)
hotcl parking
landscape upgrades
shorc facility - cl~mncc &rcnovatc
traffic congcstion during spcc~al cvcnts
common area cnbanccmcnts
trash rcmoval/dumpstcr
promdc sccurc cnvlronmcnt
Property Owner's Itcms
kccp spcci~ncn landscaping
isolate marina parking
relocate powcr hncs bclow grade
remove dumpstcr
provldc secure cnviromncnt
solve: I~lgh water tlood problcms (N Marine Way)
clcan up shorc thcdity
mmmfizc paving, lnaxmfizc grccn arcas
rcspcct neighborhood charactcr
t~ allic/pal krug congcstion dm mg spccml events
V Proposed Designs
Three schemes were detailed further and developed into a finalized preliminary
design This desIgn utihzes a relocation of the roadway towards the west within
the current right of way as well as making Marine Way a one-way roadway going
soutl..~bound from SE J'q St to SE 2"'~ St Angled parking is introduced on both
sides of the roadway The parking locations respect the existing specimen trees
and current driveway locations A public sidewalk is at the eastern edge of the
parking and roadway and a linear park or buff'er is provided between the walk at
the seawall and the new sidewalk Trellis gateways are added at each end of the
seawall walk further buffering the marina The paved roundabout is replaced with
park space at the north end, and the shore facility and adjacent grounds are
renovated and additional green space added The gazebos for use in the two new
greeh'spaces are also added The sidewalk, roadway and landscape enhancements
will match those of Atlantic Avenue. A copy of the plan is attached. The
preliminary studies are included in the appendix.
VI. Appendix
11/1/99
City of Deiray Beach
City Marina Moditications
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
Item Estimated Cost
Clearing $ 10,000
Mobilization, Traffic Maint $ 10,000
Demolition $. 25,0.00
Drainage $ 25,000
Sidewalks (brick) $ 25,000
Roadway Construction $ 35,000
Parking Area Construction $ 15,000
Signage / S. tripin, g $ ,, .~5,000
Sod / Irrigation $ 10,000
Light Poles / Site Lighting $ 30,000
Trees $ 10,000
Gazebos (2) $ 20,000
Trellis (2) $ 15,000
Building Renovation $ 40,000
Dock Gates / Fencing $ 15,000
Seawall Repairs $ 25,000
Dock Repairs $ _. 15,000
Misc. Repairs " ..... $ 5,000
Subtotal
Contractors Overhead & Profit (10%)
Contingency (10%)
Total Estilnated Costs
~%35,000
$ 33,500
$ 33,500
$ 402,000
Note Thc above costs are larcliminary in nature and were completed without the benefit
of Contractor's or supplier's bids or quotations
RECEIVED
[ITY OF OELRI:IY BEI:I[H
JAN 0 7 2000
CITY MANAGER
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
DELRAY BEACH
li. Amedca OiI
1993
200 NW 1st AVENUE · DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA 33444
TELEPHONE 561/243-'7,090 · FACSIMILE 561/278-4755
Writer's D~rect Line: (561) 243-7090
DATE: July 13, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
David T. Harden. City Manager
Jay T. Jambeck, Assistant City Attorne~
Sarasota Traffic control case.
As you are aware, last year the Circuit Court in Sarasota County granted
summary judgment to plaintiffs seeking to enjoin the City of Sarasota from erecting
speed humps and tables, and seeking removal of existing speed humps and tables.
Attached is a copy of the Second District Court of Appeal's (DCA) opinion reversing
that Circuit Court's decision.
In making its decision, the Second DCA held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to
challenge the City's use of traffic control devices. As one of the bases for its
determination that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the court held that Chapter 316 of the
Florida Statutes, which gives FDOT authority to adopt a uniform system of traffic
control devices for use in Florida, does not provide a private cause of action to citizens.
The court held that only FDOT has authority to enforce the provisions of Chapter 316 as
it relates to traffic control devices.
The court further found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the City's
use of speed humps and tables based on theories of a taxpayer suit or a constitutional
attack. The court stated that plaintiffs had not established a "special injury" such that
their harm was distinguishable from any harm inflicted on the public at large. The court
seemed to indicate that, in regard to traffic control devices, a special harm would be
difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate because "[t]he challenged devices reduce the speed
of all vehicles traversing them; the plaintiffs are no more impeded than any other
citizen."
The likely affect of Windom is that citizens challenging the City's use of traffic
control devices, including speed humps and tables, now have a difficult threshold to
meet. The only avenue thht remains available for a citizen is to challenge the traffic
control devices on a constitutimual ground and demonstrate that their injury was somehow
different in kind (and not just in degree) from that of the general public. This seems
unlikely in most cases because, as the court indicated, traffic control devices affect all
who travel over them similarly. The fact that a citizen lives near a traffic control device
and thus must traverse it more frequently than the general public will not be enough to
establish a special injury as this situation simply presents a injury that is different in
degree and not in kind.
Finally, although this opinion is from the Second DCA, and Delray Beach is
located in the Fourth DCA, decisions of one DCA are considered controlling on the
Circuit Courts of other DCAs absent a contrary ruling from another DCA. Thus,
Windom is controlling law of this Circuit as no other DCA has decided this issue.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions.
CC:
Bob Barcinski, Assistant City Manager
Dick Hasko, Director of Environmental Services
Hoyt Owens, Deputy Director of Public Works
Randal Krejcarek, City Engineer
Susan Ruby, City Attorney
1999 WL 413922, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1487, City of Sarasota v. Windom, (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1999) Page 1
· 741 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1487
C1TY OF SARASOTA, a municipal
corporation under the laws of the State of
Florida, Appellant,
V.
Robert E. Wl/~OM and John A.
Hartenstine, Appellees.
No. 98-02595.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
June 23, 1999.
268XI Use and Regulation of Pubhc Places,
Property, and Works
268XI(A) Streets and Other Public Ways
2681(701 Use as Highway
268k703 Mode of Use and Regulation
Thereof in General
268k703(4) Regulations as to speed.
Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1999.
Citizens suffered no special injury from city's
erection of speed humps and speed tables that they did
not need to cross for access to their residences and,
therefore, lacked standing to challenge the devices as
taxpayers; the devices reduced the speed of all
vehicles and did not impeded the citizens more than
any other citizen.
Citizens brought action against city to challenge the
erection of speed humps and tables. The Circuit
Court, Sarasota County, Robert B. Bennett, J.,
enjoined erection of the devices and required removal
of them. City appealed. The District Court of
Appeal, Casanueva, J., held that: (1) citizens had no
private cause of action to challenge city' s allegedly
improper traffic control devices, and (2) they lacked
standing.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<g:::* 42.2(1)
92 ....
92II Construction, Operation, and Enforcement
of Constitutional Provisions
92k41 Persons Entitled to Raise Constitutional
Questions
92k42.2 Particular Questions or Grounds of
Attack
92k42.2(1) In general.
Reversed.
ACTION<g::* 3
t3 ....
131 Grounds and Condia3ns Precedent
13k3 Statutory rights of action.
[See headnote text below]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS<g::* 703(4)
268 ....
268XI Use and Regulation of Public Places,
Property, and Works
268XI(A) Streets and Other Public Ways
268k701 Use as Highway
268k703 Mode of Use and Regulation
Thereof in General
268k703(4) Regulations as to speed.
Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1999.
Citizens had no private cause of action to challenge
city's allegedly improper traffic control devices, i.e.,
speed humps and speed tables. West's F.S.A.
316.0745.
2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS<S:~ 703(4)
268 ....
Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1999.
A party possesses standing if it can establish that the
constitutional challenge centers upon a legishtive
body' s taxing and spending power.
Michael S. Perry of Taylor, Lawless & Singer,
P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.
J. Michael Hartenstine, Sarasota, for Appellees.
Betsy M. Steg, Sr. Assistant County Attorney,
Clearwater, for Amicus Curiae Florida Association of
County Attorneys, Inc.
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, City Attorney, Clearwater,
for Amicus Curiae City of Clearwater.
Charles J. Bartlett and Andrew K. Fritsch of Icard,
Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A.,
Sarasota, for Thomas A. Dickerson, et al., as
Representative of South Sarasota Traffic Calming
Task Force.
CASANUEVA, Judge.
The City of Sarasota appeals injunctions enjoining
the City from erecting speed *742 humps and speed
tables on City streets and requiring it to remove ail
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
1999 WL 413922, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1487, City of Sarasota v. Windom, 0ala. App. 2 Dist. 1999) Page 2
previously placed speed humps and speed tables.
Because we conclude that the plaintiffs, Robert
Windom and John A. Hartenstine, lacked standing,
we reverse the summary final judgments entered
against the City.
The City approved implementation of Phase I of the
South Sarasota Traffic Abatement Plan at its regular
meeting of May 6, 1996. Phase I included the
placement of speed humps and speed tables on various
City streets to reduce the volume and speed of traffic
and to enhance pedestrian safety. The cost to
complete the installation of the asphalt speed bumps
and brick and concrete speed tables was $105,239.
Mr. Windom and Mr. Hartenstine live in different
neighborhoods within the City, and neither is required
to traverse any of the speed lmmps or speed tables for
normal ingress or egress to his residence.
On August 22, 1996, Mr. Windom and Mr.
Hartenstine instituted a two count civil complaint
against the City. One count sought a permanent
injunction enjoining the City from installing speed
humps or speed tables within the City. The second
count sought a permanent mandatory injunction
requiring the removal of those speed humps and speed
tables already installed. Count I asserted the City
lacked legal authority to approve the installation of the
speed humps and tables because the devices do not
conform to the requirements of chapter 316, Florida
Statutes (1995). Count II asserted their installation
obstructs the normal use of the City' s streets in
violation of chapter 316. The City sought to dismiss
the action, alleging the plaintiffs lacked standing. The
trial court concluded otherwise, denied the motion,
and ultimately entered a sulnmary final judgment on
both counts for the plaintiffs. This appeal ensued.
[ 1] Legishtive intent is the luminous polestar by
which this court must be guided. See In re: Order on
Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by Tenth Judicial
Circuit Public Defender, 561 So.2d 1130, 1137
(Fla. 1990). Therefore, we must ascertain whether the
legishture imended to create a private cause of action
by enacting section 316.0745. In Murthy v. N. Sinha
Corp., 644 So.2d 983,986 (Fla. 1994), the supreme
court stated that "a statute that does not purport to
establish civil liability but merely makes provision to
secure the safety or welfare of the public as an entity,
will not be construed as establishing a civil liability."
We determine that analysis to be appropriate here.
The legislative intent of chapter 316 is to provide for
the public safety of both vehicle operators and
pedestrians by standardizing equipment and by
ensuring that each device is appropriate for its
function. Further, the enforcement power for section
316.0745 is vested in the Department of
Transportation. In the absence of legislative intent to
create a private cause of action on behalf of citizens
seeking to challenge an allegedly improper traffic
control device, we decline to create such a cause of
action. Therefore, the plaintiffs possess no private
cause of action and, accordingly, lack standing to
institute such a claim.
We next consider whether standing derives from any
other basis. First, because the plaintiffs claim
entitlement to the protections *743 afforded by
section 316.0745, Florida Statutes, they contend that
they can seek redress in the courts as guaranteed by
Article I, Section 21, of the Florida Constitution. As
to this contention, we have held that section 316.0745
does not create a privately enforceable duty;
therefore, the argument that redress is available in the
courts for the claimed injury also fails.
In section 316.0745(1), Florida Statutes (1995), the
legislature granted the Department of Transportation
authority to adopt a uniform system of traffic control
devices for use on Florida's streets and highways.
Section 316.0745(3) requires that all traffic control
signals or devices installed by a public body, such as
the City, conform with the DOT's regulations. The
authority to direct the removal of any traffic control
device that fails to meet the requirement of section
316.0745 rests with the DOT. See ~ 316.0745(7).
This authority extends to an improper device
"wherever located." Id. Further, the DOT may
require a public agency such as the City hnmediately
to remove an offending device, but the DOT never
took any action to direct the removal of the City's
speed humps or tables.
[2] The second question is whether the plaintiffs
possess standing by filing of a taxpayer suit or by
means of a constitutional attack. In Boucher v.
Novotny, 102 So.2d 132, 135 (Fla. 1958), the supreme
court held that "one seeking redress, either preventive
or corrective, against an alleged violation of a
municipal zoning ordinance must allege and prove
special damages peculiar to himself differing in kind
as distinguished from damages differing in degree
suffered by the community as a whole." The role
was applied to a taxpayer challenge to a claimed
illegal expenditure of public funds. In North Broward
Hospital District v. Fornes, 476 So.2d 154, 155
(Fla. 1985) (quoting Department of Revenue v.
Markham, 396 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1981)), the
supreme court reiterated the requirements of standing,
commenting that
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
1999 WL 413922, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1487, City of Sarasota v. Windom, (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1999)
Page 3
lilt has long been the nde in Florida that, in the
absence of a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer may
bring suit only upon a showing of special injury which
is distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers in the
taxing district.
In the present case, the phintiffs neither allege nor
demonstrate a special injury. The challenged devices
reduce the speed of all vehicles traversing them; the
plaintiffs are no more impeded than any other citizen.
Consequently, the plaintiffs have no standing on this
ground.
[3] Finally, we note that an exception to the
requirement of special injury was established in
Department of Administration v. Home, 269 So.2d
659 (Fla. 1972). A party possesses standing if it can
establish that the constitutional challenge centers upon
a legislative body's taxing and spending power. See
also School Bd. of Volusia County v. Clayton, 691
So.2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 1997)(finding that action of a
public board that wastes public money does not rise to
the level of a constitutional issue when it is asserted
that the public board exceeded its authority granted by
the legislature). Clearly, the plaintiffs do not
challenge the City's spending power; equally clearly,
the City is empowered to design, build, and maintain
its streets. Rather, the plaintiffs have tested the City' s
authority to install a specific type of device. The
power to challenge that installation, however, rests
not with the plaintiffs, but with the Department of
Transportation.
The plaintiffs cite Renard v. Dade County, 261
So.2d 832 (Fla. 1972); City of Miami v. Save Brickell
Ave., Inc., 426 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and
Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So.2d
1082 (Fla. 1978); in ftmher support of their standing
position. However, those cases are readily
distinguishable as generally dealing with a procedural
challenge, such as a lack of notice, to the local
government's legislation. There is no such procedural
irregularity in the instant case.
Because the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge
the City's action, the summary final judgments are
reversed with directions to enter judgment for the
City. In closing, we recognize that the standing roles
are founded upon public policy choices that are
debatable. See Paul v. Blake, 376 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1979). But where litigants who bring an action
challenging governmental injury are unable to
distinguish their situation from others similarly
situated, the result is an unwarranted consnmpfion of
limited judicial resources. See United States v.
Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 180, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 41
L.Ed.2d 678 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring). If a
majority of the citizenry concurs with *744. the
plaintiffs' position, the remedy is only as far away as
the next election.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J.,
Concur.
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Commission
David T. Harden, City Manager
School Concurrency
December 1, 1999
Attached are copies of three cover letters which we have received in conjunction with the
School Concurrency plan. There are some pages missing from our copy of the plan,
which we are attempting to obtain. The documents we have received are being reviewed
by staff. If you would like to see the complete plan at this time, it has been forwarded to
the Planning Department.
DTH:kwg
Attachments
Palm Beach County
LEAGUE of CITIES, I c.
November 24, 1999
Dear City Managers/Administrators:
RE~CEIVE;D
N 0V 2 9 1999
CITY MANAGER
Please find enclosed important documents on the subject of School Concurrency. Due to the large
volume of the report, copying and postage charges, we are sending only one master copy to each
impacted municipality at this time.
This is the first opportunity for most municipalities to view a complete version of the proposed
interlocal agreement and its support materials, thus we strongly urge you to forward this initial copy
to your city attorney and planner for review. Your city attorney will need to pay particular attention
to the section entitled "Interlocal___ Agreement" and the comments posed by the Palm Beach County
League of Cities' attorneys. Your City planners should thoroughly review the section on staff reports
as well as the Interlocal Agreement.
You may wish to copy and distribute some or all of the information herein to your elected officials. If
necessary, additional full copies may be obtained from Leo Noble, of BSN Enterprises, at the contact
information listed on his cover letter.
The success of School Concurrency is dependent upon the trust and ability of all the parties in the
agreement to perform. Those parties are the School Board, County Commission and the 26 non-
exempted Municipalities. Conceptually, concurrency may be embraced as a solution to school
crowding issues facing Palm Beach County. However, the League of Cities urges our members to
carefully review the information provided and thoroughly explore your commitment and comfort
level prior to becoming a party to the binding interlocal agreement. Once agreed, individual
municipalities may not "opt out." Another note: Elected officials often are challenged with the issue
of classroom size by constituents, remember that concurrency does not address that issue.
Should you need further information or assistance, please don't hesitate to call upon us.
Since~r~y, ~
/James S. Titcomb
/~ Executive Director
We have enclosed the following:
1. The Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan Round 99-PS1 bound book.
2. A cover letter from Mr. Leo Noble, author/consultant to the concurrency project.
3. A cover letter and legal issues brief from League attorneys Corbett & White.
Cc: Exempted Municipalities w/o attachments
(561) 355-4484 · (561) 355-6545 Fax · tallen@co.palm-beach.fl.us
Mail: P.O.Box 1989, Governmental Center, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Office: 301 N. Olive Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
JOHN CORBETT
TRELA J WHITE
BRADLEY W BIGGS
A'I TORNEYS AT LAW
FLAGLER CENTER TOWER
505 SOUTH FLAGLFR DRiVE
SUITE 1003
AREA CODE 561
TELEPItONE 659-0804
TELECOPIER 659-3375
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRED TO SIGN SCHOOL CONCURRENCY
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY DOCUMENTS
DATE:
NOVEMBER 23, 1999
I apologize for the length of this memorandum. Since you are receiving a fairly thick
package of documents xvith little explanation of what is contained in them, I felt it might be helpful
to provide the following:
2.
3.
4.
A description of the contents of these documents;
What each municipality is expected to do with these documents;
When each municipahty is expected to take action; and
Policy and technical issues that each municipality may wish to consider in reviewing
of the documents in order to ultimately an'lye at a decision on participating in the
school concun-ency prog~ am.
Additionally, to assist you in finding the items that would be most helpful to you, I have
divided this memorandmn as follows:
Introduction
Conceptual Overview of the Program
Required Documents for the Program
Adoption Process and Schedule
Interlocal Agreement Provisions
Policy Issues
Tectmical Issues
Conclusion
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
Page 3
Page 5
Page 9
Page 12
Page 15
November 23, 1999
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Leo Noble, Palm Beach County's consultant, has prepared the enclosed "Local Planning
Agency Public ttearing Notebook", dated November 19, 1999. He is requesting that each
municipahty that is required to participate in the school concurrency program review and comment
on these documents. The twenty-six (26) municipalities that must sign the Interlocal Agreement and
agree to participate in this program are listed in Appendix G in the Notebook. Ali of the listed
municipalities, the County and the School District must agree to participate and sign the
required Interlocal Agreement for the program to go forward. If one required part)' does not
elect to participate, there can be no concurrency regulatory program according to State law.
During the development of these documents, I have been given numerous opportunities to
review the documents and p~esent potential concerns on behalf of the League of Cities. Leo Noble
has been very responsive in addressing most of these concerns. However, as I told Leo many times
during the past year, the League of Cities is not a required signatory to the Agreement. The twenty-
six (26) individual municipalities are the parties to the Agreement and program. Therefore, each
one of yon must decide whether your municipality desires to participate in the program and,
if so, be satisfied that the Agreement and other documents adequately address your concerns.
As Leo stated in his attached letter, there are some areas of the proposed Interlocal
Agreement that need further clarification. Somc of these are technical and some involve policy
issues. This memo will provide an overview of the requirements of the pro,am, will describe the
major provisions of the draft Interlocal A~eement and will highlight some of the policy issues and
technical issues you may wish to consider in your review of the proposed documents.
CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW
The school concurrency program prepared by Leo Noble is designed to eliminate and prevent
future school overcrowding. This progam addresses the capital facilities portion of school
overcrowding; specifically, the provision of permanent student stations and core facilities in the
schools. It does not address class size at all. That is an operational issue that the School District
must address separately.
This program has three major components, which are discussed in more detail below.
Briefly, the coordinated planning component addresses issues that each local government is
reqmred to.~:~:u.~i.~ate~x~ool D~stnct, such as jt~'i¥'d'd'ata and school sg~m-g~ These ~ssues
'rtms'r~"a~4d with the School District whether or not there is a school concurrency program.
The financially feasible capital facilities component is a School District progam designed
to provide enough new capacity to ehminate current overcrowding and keep up with new growth.
This is a School District responsibility whether or not there is a school concurrency program.
November 23, 1999
Page 3
The school concurrency regulatory component is designed to prevent the approval of new
residential development in areas where there is not enough school capacity. This is strictly a
voluntary pro,am that must be agreed to by the School Distrjc.~t the Count_ty and the twenty-six (26)
municipalities. ~ ' ~ ~
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
A school concun'ency program must include the following documents:
Public School Facilities Element. Each local government participant must~a~end
its comprehensive plan to include a Public School Facilities Element. The Element
prepared by Leo Noble for the County is contained ~tab labeled "Staff Reports"
in the Public Hearing Notebook.
Capital Improvements Element. Each local government participant must amend
its qomprehe_!~.si?~__pl.a_n ...C_apj±al_ Improvements~Element to include the School
District's adopted Five Year Capital Facilities Program and to include school
concurrency in its concurrency management system. The amendments to the
County's Capital Improvement Element are contained in the Tab labeled "Staff
Reports" in the Public Hearing Notebook.
School District Five Year Capital Facilities Plan. The School District must adopt
and'annually amend a financially feasible Five Year Capital Facilities Plan that must
contain enough capacity to eliminate present overcrowding and provide capacity for
projected fi~ture growth. The School District adopted it's "FY 2000 - FY 2004 Five
Year Plan and FY 2000 Capital Budget" in September, 1999. Although this
document is listed as Appendix E under the Appendices Tab in the Public Hearing
Notebook, it is NOT included in the Notebook. Th~s is the document that shows the
schools that are proposed to be constructed, expanded, or modernized over the next
five years. Therefore, each municipality should obtain a copy of this document
from the School District and should carefully review the program for the
schools within the municipality and in the surrounding area.
School Concurrency Interlocal Agreement. All required municipalities, the
County, and the School District must execute a School Concurrency Interlocal
Agreement. This Agreement spells out the responsibilities of the parties in the
school concurrency pro,am. The Interlocal Agreement prepared by Leo Noble is
contained in the Tab labeled "Interlocal AgTeement" in the Public Heating Notebook.
ADOPTION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE
In order to implement a school concurrency pro,am, each local government must amend its
November 23, 1999
Page 4
comprehensive plan to include the items listed above and must execute the School Concurrency
Interlocal Agreement.
Palm Beach County has prepared the Public School Facilities Element and Interlocal
Agreement that it would hke the municipalities to adopt The County has expressed a desire to begin
implementing the school concurrency pro,re'am by August 1, 2000. That date has no significance to
the actual program. It ~s just the target date chosen by the County Commission. It is not possible
to begin the program by this date unless the Department of Community Affairs and all the
municipalities agree to compress their normal review times for the adoption of the necessary
comprehensive plan amendments.
The County held an LPA hearing on the school concurrency documents on November 19th
A County Commission Transmittal Hearing is scheduled for December 13th. Once transmitted, the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will review the documents and issue an objections,
recommendations, and comments (ORC) report on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments
and Interlocal Agreement. Unless DCA expedites this, the report should be issued in mid to late
February, 2000. After DCA has reviewed these documents, any modifications 'to the documents
necessary to address DCA's concerns would have to be made. Then, each municipality would be
required to execute the Interlocal Agreement. The County would like the A~eement to be executed
by all parties ~vithin 60 days of the County's receipt of the ORC report, so the County could adopt
its plan amendments. This xvould mean the municipahties and School Board would have to execute
the A~eement during March to early April, unless DCA issued its report earlier than mid February.
To meet the County's target date, the municipalities ;vould have to transmit their
comprehensive plans in March, 2000. Unless DCA issued its ORC Reports early, this would give
each municipality approximately one month to hold its local planning agency public hearing and its
transmittal public hearing. To stay on the County's schedule, DCA would have to issue its ORC
reports on each amendment by the end of April, which would be one month sooner than usual. Each
municipality would then have to hold its adoption public hearing in May. DCA would have to
shorten its normal 45 day review time to a week or two, so that thc 21 day appeal period passed and
the plan amendments became effective by the end of June. Then, each municipality would have to
have its two readings on the implementing ordinance in July, so that all the ordinances ;vould be in
effect by August 1.
A more realistic time frame based on normal revie;v times ;vould provide for each
municipality to transmit its comprehensive plan amendments in March and April. The Interlocal
A~eement ~vould also be executed during this period. DCA would issue its ORC Report by early
July. Each local government would adopt its plan amendments by early September. DCA would
issue its last notice of intent to find the plan amendments in compliance by the end of October, and,
assuming no appeal, the last plan amendment would become effective in mid November. Each local
government would have until 60 days after the last local government's amendments became effective
to adopt its own implementing ordinance or the municipality would be bound by the County's
November 23, 1999
Page 5
ordinance. Concurrency could not be implemented until all local governments have completed these
items, which would be sometime in January, 2001.
Once again, it must be pointed out that the School District has already adopted its capital
improvements plan and ma3' commence construction to imple~nent that plan immediately.
There need not be a delay in the "school-building" process because of the proposed regulatory
program.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
The proposed haterlocal Agreement, contained in the Tab labeled "Interlocal Agreement" in
the Public Hearing Notebook, is the main document that describes how the school concurrency
program will operate. I will discuss the components of the Agreement and the issues raised during
our numerous meetings that should be considered carefi.~lly by each municipality in reviewing the
Agreement. Your own planners should review the comprehensive plan amendments and provide any
suggested revisions to those documents.
The Interlocal A~eement contains a recitation of the specific responsibilities of the parties
that begins on Page 10. By entering into the Interlocal Agreement, each municipality is a~eeing to
do the following:
1. Amend its comprehensive plan to add a Public School Facilities Element;
2. Amend its Intergovermnental Coordination Element;
Incorporate the School District's Capital Facilities Plan into its Capital Improvement
Element and update it yearly;
Either elect to be bound by the County's implementing ordinance or adopt its own
school concurrency ordinance;
Not issue any development orders for new residential development until the School
District reports that there is adequate school capacity to serve the development; and
Coordinate planning with the School District regarding population projections,
school siting, projections for development and redevelopment for the coming year,
infrastructure required to support public schools, and review of amendments to the
future land use elements of the comprehensive plan.
The A~eement addresses the three main components of the program discussed above. The
folloxving is a brief synopsis of the components and ~vhere they are addressed in the Agreement.
There is also a description of the other miscellaneous provisions of the Agreement.
November 23, 1999
Page 6
Coordinated Planning
The Corn dinated Planning provisions are included in Article VIII, which is located on Pages
40-50 of the A~ecment. Th~s Article addresses coordinating Population Projections, data required
to be used in the regulatory and plmming programs of the School District, and School Siting. The
School Siting provisions that begin on Page 43 are designed to address the ongoing problems some
local governments and the School District encounter over the location and use of school facilities.
The IPARC planners are reviewing this section and may propose changes to it. Each local
government should be comfortable with these provisions, since they spell out how local
governments will deal with review and approval of school facilities.
Financially Feasible Capital Facilities Component
The Capital Facilities provisions are included in Article III, which is located on Pages 13-16
of the Agreement. The School District is reqmred to adopt a Five Year Capital Facilities Plan that
adds enough capacity to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service for elementary, middle,
and high schools and provides for modennzation of schools. This plan must be updated annually
by September 15~h of each year. Each local govenm]ent must then include the updated program in
its Capital Facilities Element. Note: The School District may amend the first three years of the
adopted program only if the Board makes the findings specified on Page 16. Finding 0o) is
very broad and gives the School District a lot of flexibility in modifying the plan The School
District is h'ee to amend the last two (2) years at any ti~ne.
School Concurrency Regulatory Co~nponent
The School Concurrency Regulato~ provisions ,7re contained in Articles IV and ¥. Article
IV, which is located on Pages 17-18 spells out the comprehensive plan amendments that each local
government must adopt and the process for amending the Public School Facilities Element in the
fi~ture.
The actual School Concurrency Regulatory Program is detailed in Article V, which is located
on Pages 18-31. This gn-ticle establishes the level of service for schools (Section B); establishes
concurrency service areas for use in measuring available capacity (Section A); provides for the
adoption of concurrency ordinances (Section D); establishes some exemptions from concurrency
(Section C); details how development proposals will be reviewed for adequate school capacity
(Section E); and provides for the suspension of concun'ency if the School District does not perform
its responsibdities under the Agreement (Section G).
Level of Service (Section B - Pages 20~22) - The level of service is the maximum percentage
of school utilization, determined by dividing students by permanent student stations. The adopted
level of service is 110%. This means there can be 110 students for every 100 permanent student
stations. Ho~vever, a tiered level of service (a higher,p,,ercentage of students over capacity) is
November 23, 1999
Page 7
proposed for the first four years, with the entire district attaining the adopted 110% level of service
in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. Exhibit B to the Agreement spells out which concurrency service areas
will have more crowded schools for the first four years of the program. Individual schools may
exceed the adopted 110% level of serx'ice if a School Capacity Study indicates that the school may
operate at a higher percentage, up to 120%.
Concurrency Service Areas (CSA 's) (Section A - Pages 18-20) - School capacity and
enrollment are measured by concurrency service areas (CSA's), xvhich are 23 large geo~aphic areas
established for this program. Available school capacity is initially measured for each CSA by adding
up the total capaci .ty of each type of school located within a CSA and comparing that number to the
total enrollment in all of those schools. These CSA's are not related to actual school attendance
zones. Students from one CSA may actually attend school in another CSA. Section A establishes
these concurrency service areas. Although these are supposed to be in Exhibit E to the Agreement,
they are not included in that Exhibit. Hoxvever, you can see the map of the CSAs near the middle
of the section of the Notebook labeled "Staff Reports".
Adoption qf Con cu,'ret, cy Ordin an ces (Section D - Page 23) - Each local government may
adopt its own concurrency ordinance or elect to be bound by the ordinance adopted by the County.
Exemptio~ts (Section C - Pages 22-23) - Single family lots of record are proposed to be
exempt from the concurrency pro,am. Also, any project that filed a complete application or was
approved prior to the effective date of the concurrency ordinance and any project that is otherwise
exempt under the local ~overnment s concurrency regulations is exempt.
Review of DeveIopme~tt Proposals (Section E - Pages 23 -29) - The School District will
reviexv development proposals to determine if there is adequate school capacity for the students that
~vould be generated by the proposed development. Since the School District's Capital Facilities Plan
is required to provide student stations for projected student growth during the five years of the plan,
there is already capacity programmed into the plan for anticipated future growth. That capacity is
expressed as projected nexv residential units within each CSA. When a new development proposal
is received, the School District xvill first detem~ine if there are enough projected new residential units
in the CSA of the project to accommodate the new development. If so, the number of units assig-ned
to the new development wtll be deducted from the total projected new residential units in the CSA.
If not, the School District will determine if the new development xvould cause the CSA to exceed
the adopted level of service. If it would, the School District must then look to see if there is enough
capacity available in surrounding CSAs to accommodate the new development. If not, the School
District must evaluate xvhether or not there are planned improvements in the first three years of the
Five Year Capital Facilities Program to provide the required capacity for the new project. If a new
development still can not meet concurrency, the developer may propose mitigation. Mitigation
must be approved by the School District. Since the School District will be essentially accounting
for the capacity required for each approved project and adjusting the available capacity within CSA's
accordingly, there is a process identified in this section to allow the School District to shift where
November 23, 1999
Page 8
the project's capacity is reserved from one CSA to another CSA. Appeals from decisions of the
School District may be ~nade to the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which is described
below.
Susl~e~tsio~t of Concurrency (Section G ~ ;Pages 29-3J) - Concurrency is suspended in all
CSAs if the School District does not adopt its annual update to the Five Yea' Capital Facilities Plan
by September 15th of each year, if the adopted plan does not add enough capacity to meet projected
growth, or ~fthe adopted plan is not financially feasible. Also, concurrency is suspended in all CSAs
if the School District notifies the other parties of an Act of God, which allows the School District
to deviate fi-om the A~eement. Concurrency is suspended in individual CSAs and adjacent CSAs
if an individual school project is more than 12 months behind schedule, the School District does not
maximize utilization of capacity, or the School District materially amends the first three years of the
plan and the level of service is then exceeded as a result of that amendment. If at the end of its two
year review, TAG recommends the suspension of concurrency, 33% of the parties may vote
to suspend concurrency. Concurrency is reinstated whenever TAG determines that the condition
causing the suspension has been remedied.
Other Agreexnent Provisions
In addition to the main components described above, the Agreement also includes the
following provisions.
Mo~itori~tg The monitoring provisions are included in Article VI, which is located on Pages
32-38. A Tectmical Advisory Group (TAG) is established. This group has five (5) members with
specific back~ounds listed on Page 33. TAG members are nominated by specific groups, with the
School Board, County or League of Cities having the right to veto any nominee. TAG prepares
yearly reports on the accuracy of the School Board's projections in the areas of student projections,
populatmn projections, cost of construction and schedules of construction. These reports are
submitted to the parties by August 1 of each year. Every other year, beginning in 2002, TAG will
also issue a report that evaluates the effectiveness of the program. This report is due by November
1 in each even numbered year. TAG may recommend suspending concurrency as part of this report.
TAG is also the body that would hear appeals from the School D~strict's findings on specific
concurrency applications.
3Iediatio~t of Disj~utes The mediation provisions are located in Article VII, which is
contained on Pages 39-40. The Agreement specifies that the parties will attempt to resolve any
disputes informally. If that fails, the parties a~ee to submit the dispute to mediation, pursuant to the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement. That Agreement is
attached as Exhibit D to the Interlocal A~eement. If the mediation fails, the parties agree to binding
arbitration.
contains
Sl~ecial Provisions Article IX on Pages 50-51 . provisions specifying that the School
November 23, 1999
Page 9
District's authority over providing a uniform system of free public schools is not changed by this
Agreement and the local government's land use authority is not being transferred by this Agreement.
The third provision allows each party to petition the Court for specific performance of any provisions
of the Agreement. This provision seems to be in conflict with the binding arbitration provision in
Article VII.
Acts of God Provision Article X, on Pages 51-52, gives the School District the right to
suspend its compliance with the provisions of the A~eement or to deviate from or modify the
approved Capital Facilities Plan in order to respond to unforeseen circumstances. Such non-
comphm~ce, deviation or modification is not deemed to be a violation of the A~eement under these
circumstances. The School District may unilaterally invoke this provision and, if invoked,
concurrency is automatically suspended.
Term, ~4me~tdme~tt, }Yithdrawal and Term#ration of the Agreement The provisions
dealing xvith these issues are contained in Articles XII and XIII, located on Pages 52-53. At the
County's Land Use Advisory Board meeting, Leo Noble asked the Board to delete paragraph 1 from
the Agreement. The Board recommended this deletion. Paragraph 1 had provided that the
Agreement has a term of five years, and is renewed for additional five year temps as long as no
required party objects to the renewal. With this paragraph deleted, Article XIII specifies that the
Agreement shall be effective for a minimum of five years and shall continue forever unless 75%
of the parties agree to terminate the Agreement. The Agreement may only be amended by
written agreement of 51% of the parties. Any party no longer required to be a party by State law
may xvithdraw.
I, demnificatio~t of the Parties Article XIV, on pages 53-54 contains the indemnification
language. Paragraph 1 contains the School District's indemnification of all the other parties for acts
that are totally within the pm-view of the School District. Paragraph 2 contains a similar
indemnification of all other parties for acts totally within the purview of any one local government.
POLICY ISSUES
As mentioned above, this program has three main components. The coordinated planning
component is required regardless of concurrency. The sharing of information between the parties
will help the School District plan where to build capacity. The School District is solely responsible
for providing school capacity. A financially feasible capital facilities program is required for the
School District to meet its obligation to provide school capacity. If these two components are
implemented, there should be no school capacity problems. Leo Noble has said on numerous
occasions that the regulatory progam should not stop development, since projected groxvth in school
e~zrollment is already accounted for in the School District's capital facility pro,am. Therefore, the
regulatory component of the program should not have much of an impact on school overcrowding.
Yet most of the policy issues arise because of this regulatory component.
November 23, 1999
Page 10
The school concurrency regulatory program is a voluntary progam that has not been
implemented an~vhere in Florida. The regulatory program outlined in the Interlocal Agreement is
experimental. It relies on the School District to do accurate plamfing, m~d to finance and implement
an ambitious construction program. The School District does not have a proven track record of
success in these areas. The impact of the pro,am on development and redevelopment is unlmown.
These factors give rise to the following major policy issues that you should consider in your review
of the program. Obviously, the resolution of some of the other issues may impact your decision on
the first issue.
Should You Participate in The Program?
In evaluating whether or not to participate in the concurrency pro,am, the potential benefits
and detriments of participation should be analyzed by each individual municipality. The regulatory
program would preclude the approval of any new residential development if the School District says
there is not available school capacity for that development. If this occurs, already overcrowded
schools should not be fi~rther overcrowded by new development. However, the same school may
still be further overcrowded by new students from existing houses, resulting from either new births
or changes in residents.
On the other hand, the proposed concurrency pro,am elevates school capacity above all
other local government planning and redevelopment progams, with no opportunity to balance the
competing public interests in the various pro,ams. For example, many coastal communities are in
the process of t~ying to encourage residential development within their downtown areas. If the
School District does not provide the required school capacity, the School District can essentially veto
those redevelopment plans. Unlike other forms of concurrency, the individual local governments
can not rex,'ise the level of service or provide exceptions to concurrency for competing public policy
reasons.
The proposed concurrency pro,mn also elevates school capacity above other factors in some
plmming and operational decisions of the School District. The School District is giving up some of
its discretion in formulating m~d modifying its capital facilities program. Also, if there is a
concurrency progam, the School District must maximize its utilization of capacity. As Leo Noble
states in his cover letter, this means the School District must balance enrollments so that one school
will not be over capacity while a neighboring school is under capacity. The School District xvill have
to make program adjustments and attendance boundary adjustments in order to balance capacity for
concurrency proposes rather than basing these decisions solely on educational factors, boundary
committee decisions and parental wishes. These limitations may be both positive and negative,
depending on the individual situation involved.
Term and Termination of Agreement
As mentioned above, Leo Noble requested and the LUAB voted to remove para~aph 1 of
November 23, 1999
Page 11
Article XII. With this paragraph removed, the Agreement does not have a set term. The Agreement
now provides that it shall be effective for a minimum of five years and, after that point, could only
be terminated by agremnent of 75% of the parties. Under this proposal, once a local government
voluntarily enters into this program, it can not get out of it without the a~m'eement of 75% of the other
parties. This could present a problem if concun'ency is causing a difficulty in only a few
jurisdictions. Municipalities experiencing detrimental effects would not be able to remove
themselves from the program. The legally' of an agreement with no set term, that is essentially
perpetual, and fi'om which you can not ~ithdraw even if you desire to terminate participation,
should be reviewed by your attorneys.
Even beyond the potential legal problems with these provisions, each participant must decide
if this arrangement is acceptable from a policy perspective. Each municipality must answer the
following question: "Do you want to voluntarily enter into a program from which you can not
withdraw?"
The language in the removed paragraph 1 of Article XII recognized that every party is an
equal partner going into the program. It provided for a terna of five years, wlfich is the length of the
School District's current Capital Facilities Program. It provided that the A~eement would be
automatically renewed unless a required party objected to the renewal. If any party wanted to
terminate the prog-ram, the program xvould be terminated after the initial five (5) year term.
Each nmnicipality should determine what rights it requires regarding withdrawal from this
program if it is not working as anticipated.
Indemnification
Since the concmTency program could have the effect of denying a property o~vner the ability
to use his property for residential purposes, at least temporarily, there is some potential liability for
municipalities and the County in implementing such a regulatory program. This issue is further
complicated by the local goverrnnent's rehance on the School District's performance as con-unitted
in the Interlocal Agreement. If the School District does not perform, the municipality or County
must deny the development approval. The local government denying the development approval
would be the likely defendant in any litigation, even though the School District made the capacity
determination. To address this concern, indemnification language has been included in Article XIV.
This indenmification language addresses the failure of any party to perform their assig-ned
responsibilities in the program. Your attorneys should review this language to make sure it affords
adequate protection.
There is one scenario that is not covered by this language. Each party could be performing
as required under the Agreement and yet someone could sue to either overturn the pro,am or for
damages as a result of being denied a permit. The likely party to the suit would be the local
government xvith jurisdiction over th..%property. If only ?ne local government is sued, should all
November 23, 1999
Page 12
parties be obligated to defend and share in any damages as a result of this situation or should the one
local govcnm~ent sued be solely responsible for defending thc entire pro,am and paying any
damages?
Suspension of Concurrency
The intent of the Agreement is to suspend concurrency if the School District is not
performing as required by the A~'eement. Since this is an experimental program, even if everyone
is performing as required, there could be some unintended, undesirable consequences of the program,
such as halting essential development or redevelopment efforts of local governments. Since that is
not the intent of the program, it appears that there should be a mechanism to suspend concurrency
until the problem is corrected. In response to this concern, Leo Noble included language that after
the txvo year TAG revxew of the program, the TAG could recommend suspension and 33% of the
parties could agree to suspend concurrency. Hoxvevcr, this provision essentially gives the TAG veto
power over suspension in this situation. Should it be a requirement that TAG must recommend
suspension; or should 33% of the parties have the right to independently suspend if the program is
not xvorking as anticipated, regardless of the TAG recommendation?
Interim Level of Service
The A~eement provides that concm'rency would be implemented immediately. Since it will
take the School District four years to build enough capacity to attain the adopted level of service of
110%, higher levels of service are set in some CSA's for the first three years of the program. This
means that some schools will continue to operate at a higher level of crowding for that time period.
When concmTency was being discussed a couple of years ago, the position of the League of Cities
was that there should be no interim level of service. It was felt that concurrency should not start
until the School District attained the adopted level of service. This would force the School District
to actually implement its construction program for a fexv years before local governments
implemented a regulatory program. Do you want concurrency implemented immediately with
an interim level of service or should the regulator>, program wait until the School District
actually attains the adopted level of service?
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Leo Noble's cover letter points out that there are some areas of the Ageement that will need
further clarification. As you review these documents, there may be some technical issues that you
identify that need further clarification. These could be addressed in the upcoming months. It is
important that each party feel comfortable that the Agreement and plan elements say exactly what
everyone thinks they say. The following is a list of potential issues broken down by section of the
Agreement that you should consider in reviewing the document. You may identify others. That is
the purpose of this initial review.
November 23, 1999
Page 13
Article II
- What Intergovernmental Coordination Element amendments are being required? (This
same comment applies to Article IV also)
- As detailed earlier in this memo, the date of June 30, 2000 for amending comprehensive
plans may not be realistic given hearing schedules and statutory time frames. (This same comment
applies to Article IV also)
Article III
The target level of service is designed to make sure the School District maximizes
utilization of capacity as required by law. Is the language clear enough to adequately define this
target level of servme the con-tmitment the School District is making to maximize utilization of
capacity?
The School District is required to adopt a financially feasible five year plan that must be
included in each local govenm]ent's capital improvement element. This requirement is designed to
provide certainty to the pmties as to which schools will actually be constructed by the School
District. However, Section G of Article III allows the School District to amend its adopted Five
Year Capital Facilities Plan by making certain findings. Thus, consider the following:
- What happens to adopted local government plans that have already included the
School District's Five Year Plan if the School District amends the plan?
- Is finding (b) on page 16 so broad as to make the plan too flexible?
Article IV
- Should the model element in Exhibit A be genetic rather than the County's element?
Artiele V
- The School District is required to maximize utilization of capacity so that some schools are
not overcroxvded while others have available capacity. Is the language in paragraph 5 on page 20
clear enough on what the School District is obligated to do?
- Is the level of service expressed in Section B clear enough as it relates to individual
schools?
- Paragraph 3 on page 21 allows school capacity studies in order to see if a school could
operate at a level of service between 110% and 120%.
November 23, 1999
Page 14
- If the study finds that the school can operate at the higher level of service, how is
the capacity of the CSA changed for concurrency purposes?
~If the study finds that the school can not so operate, is the language at the end of the
paragraph clear enough on when the School District is obligated to correct the
failure?
Section D provides that each local government may adopt/ts own concurrency ordinance
orbe bound by the County ordinance i fit does not adopt its ordinance within 60 days of the effective
date of the last comprehensive plan amendment. Is it clear that a municipality may adopt its own
ordinance after that 60 day period and are there any legal constraints to a municipality "opting out"
of the adopted County ordinance once it takes effect in the municipality?
Section E describes the concurrency review process. So that there are no
misunderstandings later, every parD' should have a 'very clear understanding of exactly how
the School District will review development proposals.
Is this process clearly spelled out so that everyone knows exactly how the School
District will implement the review system?
- The process essentially reserves capacity when new development is approved. Will
this system ultimately lead to overestimating needed capacity in future years?
- How is projected ne~v capacity in the five year plan used h~ the concurrency review?
- How is capacity accounted for in the adjacent CSAs when that capacity is utilized
in a development approx'al?
- If a developer commits to a mitigation project, is that capacity reserved for that
development? Does it have to be to avoid a rational nexus problem?
- Section G provides that concurrency will be suspended if the School District does not
maximize utilization in the time specified in this Agreement. Is the A~eement clear enough on what
the School District is supposed to do and when they are supposed to do it?
Article V/
- The TAG is supposed to hear appeals of School District concurrency decisions. Should
there be language in the A~eement that specifies hoxv those appeals should occur?
- The TAG members are nominated by entities that are not parties to the Agreement. What
happens if one of these entities does not make a nomination?
November 23, 1999
Page 15
Article XII
- The laxvs governing concun'ency provide that if an exempt municipality loses its exemption,
it must join in the Interlocal Agreement. Should there be provisions for how a municipality joins
this Agreement?
CONCLUSION
This will be many municipalities' first oppon'unity to review these documents. Please spend
the next couple of months reviewing them and conveying any revisions you desire to Leo Noble at
the following address:
Mr. Leo E. Noble
BSN Enterprises, Inc.
1713 Flagler Manor Circle
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Fax # 561-790-0898
Please provide a copy of your request to Jamie Titcomb at the following address:
Palm Beach County League of Cities
P.O. Box 1989
Governmental Center
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Fax # 561-355-6545
I believe Leo will be contacting each municipality in the coming weeks. Upon receipt of your
comments and proposed revisions, the League can keep other municipalities informed as the review
process continues.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions about the issues raised in this memo.
BSN ENTERPRISES, Inc.
November 18.1999
Mr. David Harden
City Manager
100 N.W. First Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Dear Mr. Harden:
Attached please find a copy of the Public Hearing Notebook for public school concurrency for
your review. This notebook reflects the work of the School District, Palm Beach County, and the
League of Cities throughout the past year to develop the required elements of public school
concurrency for Palm Beach County. We have worked very hard since we outlined the process
for public school concurrency in the November 30, 1998 joint workshop with the Board of
County Commissioners, League of Cities' Board of Directors, and the School Board. This
document reflects this effort.
There will be some areas in this document, which will need further clarification as we work to
gain approval among the parties. However, the proce£ses for joint planning and development
review outlined in this document were presented to a joint workshop of the Board of County
Commissioners, League of Cities' Board of Directors, and the School Board on October 13,
1999. At this meeting, we were asked to proceed with implementing public school concurrency
by seeking approval of the required parties.
There are four significant components to public school concurrency.
The first and foremost requirement is to set forth a financially feasible plan. You will
note that a five, ten, and twenty year capital facilities plan is required as shown in Section
III of the Interlocal Agreement. This addresses not only the need for permanent student
stations for expected growth in students from new residential development but also
modernization of our older schools. On September 8, 1999, The School Board of Palm
Beach County adopted a financially feasible Five Year Capital Facilities Plan that
addresses the requirements of the Interlocal Agreement.
Another important component of the plan describes how the Level of Service (LOS) is
measured The LOS in the plan is measured in Concurrency Service Areas (CSA's) and
requires maximum utilization of capacity within each CSA. Maximum utilization is the
balancing of enrolhnents so that one school will not be over capacity and a neighboring
school under capacity. You will find in appendix "C" how each CSA will attain the
adopted LOS.
1713 Flagler Manor Circle · West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 · 561-714-3811 · Fax 561-790-0898
The third component is establishing intergovernmental coordination and collaborative
planning among the School District, the County, and municipalities' as outlined in Section
VIII This includes population projections, school siting, and publication of data and
additional planning necessary to support the annual update of the FiveYear Capital
Facilities Plan.
The fourth component, outlined in Section V, is the determination of concurrency for new
residential development. It also includes mitigation options.
Please find attached the three pages, which were inadvertently left out of your packages in the
copying prodess.
I will be calling you in the next couple of Weeks to discuss the entire program and answer any
questions you may have.
/1Leo E Noble,,
2
'11~17-1999 11:23AM FROM PLANNING AND REAL_ES 661 434 8187
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY PROGRAM .............................. 18-31
A. Concurrency Service Areas ..................................... 18-20
B. Level of Service (LOS) ......................................... 20-22
C. Exemptions .................................................. 22-23
D. Local Concurrency lmpIementing Ordinance ........................ 23
E. School District Review of New Residential De~'elopment Proposals .... 23-29
F. Term of School Concurrency Certificate ............................. 29
G, Suspension of Concurrency ..................................... 29-31
MONITORING .................................................... 32-38
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
L.
M.
Establishment~f the Technical Advisory Group CRAG) ................ 32
Purpose of the TAG .............................................. 32
Membership of the TAG .......................................... 33
Terms of Membership ............................................ 33
Election of Chair and Organization Meeting ......................... 34
Quorum and Voting .............................................. 34
Meetings open to the public ....................................... 34
Compensation ................................................... 34
Staff Support for the TAG ........................................ 35
Management Reports ............................................. 35
Enrollment Reports .............................................. 35
Monitoring Reports ........................................... 35-36
Program Evaluation Report .................................... 36-37
-ii-
~o1-17-1999 11:23AM FROM PLANNING AND. REAL.ES B61 434 8187 P. 3
DRAFT - FLNAL
11/10/99
LEO NOBLE
C. Membership o£the TAG.
1. Thc TAG will consist of five (5) members with relevant special knowledge
or c×pcrience and shall include the following:
(a) A Certified Public Accountant nominated by Lhe FAU College of
Business.
(b) A General Con~rac~or nomLnated by the Local Ghapter of th~ AOC.
(¢) A Demographer nominated by the FAU Gollege of Geography.
(d) A. Realtor nominated by the PBC Board of Realtors.
(e) A planner nominated by the Treasure Coast Chapter of the American
Planning A~$ociafion.
2. TAG members shall be automatically approved within 60 days of the nomination
unless vetoed by the SCHOOL BOARD, the League of Cities or the COUNTY.
D. Terms of Membership.
The initial terms of TAG members ~ha!l commence on July t, 2000 and be as follows:
1. Two Year Terms - The CPA and the General Contractor
2. Three Year Terms - The Realtor, Demographer, and Planner
Each succeeding appointment shall be for a term of three years. Upon the death, or
resignation, of a member, the nominating body will propose a successor for the unexpired term, or
a full term, as the case may be, and will be accepted unless vetoed per C-2 above.
33
· °1 1 - 17-1999 1 1 : 23AH FROH PL.ANN ! NG AND REAL ES 661 434. 8187 P. 4.
DRAFT - FFNAL
I1/10/99
LEO NOBLE
(a) Not to accept any gift, favor, or service that might reasonably tend to
improperly influence the discharge of official duties.
(b) To make known by written or oral disclosuxe, on the record at a TAG
meeting, any interest which the member has in any pending matter before the TAG before any
deliberation on that matter.
(c) To abstain from ~sing membership on the TAG to secure special
privileges or exemptions.
(d) .To refrain from engaging in any business or professional activity
which might reasonably be expected to require disclosure of cordidendal information acquired by
membership on the TAG not available to mexnbers of the general public, and refrain from using such
information for personal gain or benefit.
(e) To refi'ain from accepting employment which might impair
independent judgment in the performance of responsibilities as a members of the TAG.
(f) To refrain from Wansacting any business in an official capacity as a
member of the TAG with any business entity of which the member is an officer, director, agent or
member, or in which the member owns a coau'olling interest.
(g) To refrain from participafioa in any matter in which the member has
a personal investment which will create a substantial conflict between private and public interests.
38