School Concurrency Requirement that public school facilities necessary to maintain the adopted level of service are in place prior to or concurrent with the impacts of new residential development.

School District Focus Interlocal Agreement Financially feasible 5-year plan School level of service standards Student generation rates School service area boundary(s) Mitigation measures

School Concurrency Benefits Awareness of new residential development and its impact on public schools Collaborative mapping/data gathering Regulatory oversight/monitoring Joint planning to meet future student growth

School Concurrency Update As part of SB360 all participating school districts and local governments must adopt school concurrency by 2008 The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) schedule requires the adoption of the required Clay County documents by May 1, 2008 The DCA and Clay County have entered into an Agreement to adopt the school concurrency interlocal agreement by September 1, 2006

Required Documents The following documents are required to be completed by May 1, 2008 (if not following DCA/County Grant): An updated Interlocal Agreement for Coordinated Planning and School Concurrency A new Public School Facilities Element An updated Intergovernmental Coordination Element An updated Capital Improvement Element

Interlocal Agreement (ILA) Updated Interlocal Agreement 163.31777(2), F.S. Provides framework for school concurrency Uniform level of service Financially feasible school capital program School concurrency service areas defined Coordinated student projections Development review procedures School siting criteria Co-location of public facilities Monitoring and evaluation Uniform proportionate–share mitigation process

The Framework for School Concurrency Data Collection Analysis of data to determine Short and long term trends Population growth Student projections Schools’ Capital Funds Financial feasibility Current/future needs Utilization vs LOS standards Concurrency service areas GIS mapping using trends

School Related Data School capacity Current and projected enrollment Student generation rates per school type and housing type School facility demand/ utilization Capital costs for school improvements including land and infrastructure

School District Five-Year Capital Facilities Program Based upon the school CSA Financially feasible plan demonstrates: Funding availability Adopted level of service will be achieved and maintained Student enrollment projections are anticipated Capacity needs School modernization/replacement projects School utilization maximized General long term conditions planned

Level of Service Standard(s) Sets uniform standards district-wide for each school type FISH permanent student stations Based on financially feasible capital plan Adopted in the Local Government’s PSFE and CIE May be Tiered to address backlogged demand and meet future LOS

Proposed Tiered Level of Service (example) TIERED LEVEL OF SERVICE - SCHOOL YEAR 2008-2013 Facility Type 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Elementary 155% 150% 145% 140% 135% 130% Middle 100% High 173% 165% 125%

Service Area Boundaries Boundaries may be defined by: District-wide (initially) Less than District-wide (2013) Schools must maximize utilization

Proportionate Share Mitigation Mitigation options may include: Donation of land/buildings Renovation of existing school facilities Construction of permanent student stations Construction of schools in advance of the time set forth in School District’s Five-Year Plan Financial contribution/mitigation bank Directed toward a capacity project identified in the School District Five-Year Capital Plan and satisfy the demands created by the development

Failure to Enter into an Approved Updated Interlocal Agreement to Implement School Concurrency Subjects the school board to funding withholding sanctions equivalent to the available funds for school construction. Subjects a local government to being prohibited from adopting comprehensive plan amendements that increase residential density.

School Concurrency Benefits Awareness of new residential development and its impact on public schools Collaborative mapping/data gathering Regulatory oversight/monitoring of residential development Joint planning to meet future student growth

Additional Information Jeanne Mills, JD, AICP Jeanne Mills and Associates, LC jeannemills@adelphia.net (561)213-6931 David DeYoung, AICP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. david.deyoung@kimley-horn.com (561)840-0291