2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Interlocal Agreement (ILA)
Updated Interlocal Agreement (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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Proposed Tiered Level of Service (example)
TIERED LEVEL OF SERVICE - SCHOOL YEAR
Facility Type
Elementary
155%
150%
145%
140%
135%
130%
Middle
100%
High
173%
165%
125%

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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. Additional Information
Jeanne Mills, JD, AICP
Jeanne Mills and Associates, LC
(561)
David DeYoung, AICP
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
(561)