1. Concurrency Management &ProportionateFair-ShareTransportationMitigation

2. ConcurrencyManagementSystem Study Network Alternatives

3. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT STUDY AREA EXISTING & PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS Existing Requirements  Trips < = 1,000: Address adjacent roads  Trips > 1,000: 5% of roadway capacity  Buildout & Intersections Analysis - Implicit Proposed Requirements  Trips < = 1,000: Address adjacent roads  Trips > 1,000: 5% County Roads Capacity  Trips > 1,000: 3% State Road Capacity  Buildout & Intersections Analysis - Explicit

4. PROPOSED STUDY AREA ALTERNATIVE: ADDRESS PER BOCC DIRECTION Trips < 1% of adjacent roads capacity: No Impact Trips < 1% of adjacent roads capacity + Roadway Operates > = 110% capacity: Two (2) miles Trips > = 1% of adjacent roads capacity: All roadways where trips > = 1% of capacity

5.  1%  2%  3%  4%  5% TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA ALLOWABLE IMPACT TWO (2) LANE ROADWAY  146 Trips  292 Trips  438 Trips  584 Trips  730 Trips  15 Units  30 Units  45 Units  61 Units  76 Units 2 Lane Road (14,600 Daily Capacity) Equivalent Single Family Subdivision Percent Daily Capacity

6.  1%  2%  3%  4%  5%  5% + TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA ALLOWABLE IMPACT FOUR (4) LANE ROADWAY  357 Trips  714 Trips  1,071 Trips  1,428 Trips  1,785 Trips  2,450 Trips 4 Lane Road (35,700 Daily Capacity) Percent Daily Capacity  37 Units  75 Units  110 Units  150 Units  185 Units  255 Units Equivalent Single Family Subdivision

7. EXAMPLE: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON FT. CLARK BLVD ALLOWABLE IMPACT TO NEWBERRY ROAD Ft. Clark Blvd Newberry (SR 26) Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 49,000 Capacity (MTPO) 2,450 Daily Trips = 5% of Capacity Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 35,700 Capacity (FDOT) 1,071 Daily Trips = 3% of Capacity Existing CMS Study AreaProposed CMS Study Area 110 Unit SF Subdivision255 Unit SF Subdivision

8. Ft. Clark Blvd Newberry (SR 26) Existing Study Area Alternative One (1) Percent CMS Study Area 35 Unit SF Subdivision Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 34,700 Capacity (FDOT) 347 Daily Trips = 1% of Capacity EXAMPLE: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON FT. CLARK BLVD ALLOWABLE IMPACT TO NEWBERRY ROAD ALTERNATIVE - 1% OPTION Newberry (SR 26) – 4 lane divided 49,000 Capacity (MTPO) 2,450 Daily Trips = 5% of Capacity 255 Unit SF Subdivision

9. ProportionateFair-ShareTransportationMitigation

10. HOW CAN A DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS A TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY DEFICIENCY?  Don’t build  Reduce size of project  Conduct traffic analysis  Wait until capacity is added  Add capacity  Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation

11. WHAT IS PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION?  Alternative Option to meet Transportation Concurrency  Proportionate share of cost for new capacity  Equitable way to address Concurrency  Allows road to “temporarily” operate below LOS standard  Promotes sound Capital Improvements Planning  Transportation Planning  Reduces potential for moratorium

12. PAY & GO vs. PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION PAY & GO  Developer Pays Contribution and Builds PROPORTIONATE SHARE MITIGATION  Developer Pays Contribution and Builds +  Capacity project is included in:  Five-Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP)  Long Term Concurrency Management Plan  MUST BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE!!!

13. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING & PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE MITIGATION 1.Five-Year Capital Improvements Program  First three (3) years – project fully funded  Years four (4) & five (5) - Proportionate share applicable 2.Long Term Concurrency Management Plan  10 Year Horizon  Adopted into Comprehensive Plan & CIP 3.By Adopted Resolution, added to CIP or LTCMS 4.MUST BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE!!!

14. WHAT DOES FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE MEAN? Roadway or Intersection in CIP/LTCMS must be backed by:  General Revenue Funds  Sales Tax  Gas Tax  Impact Fees  Bonding REASONABLY ANTICIPATE PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED by:  Developers  County  FDOT

15. IS PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE NEEDED!! ROADWAYS OVER OR NEAR CAPACITY

16. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT & PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE RECAP!!  Modification to Transportation Network Evaluation  Alternative to address Concurrency deficiency  Roadway or Intersection must be deficient  Project “NOT” in CIP / LTCMS – County Option to Add  Project in CIP / LTCMS – Is a Developer right  Project MUST be FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE!!!  Transportation Concurrency is an issue

17. NEXT STEP!! DEVELOPMENT OF LONG TERM CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PLAN

18. QUESTIONS ?? COMMENTS !! DISCUSSION