1. CARI ROTH Bryant Miller Olive CLAY COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

2. CHAPTER 2011-139 190 pages Major Changes to Process and Content Comprehensive Planning still required but with less dictates More deference to local decision-making Procedures are simpler and faster

3. Simplified Comp Planning Requirements DCA Rule 9J-5 is repealed Codifies rule provisions on urban sprawl but is more flexible on what is “desirable pattern” Need is a minimum, not a ceiling

4. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONCURRENCY A NEW CONCEPT IN 1985 AS APPLIED TO TRANSPORTATION ALWAYS BEING TWEAKED  EXCEPTIONS AND TIMING  ENCOURAGING INFILL OVER GREENFIELD  CONCURRENCY EXEMPTION AREAS  DENSE URBAN LAND USE AREAS  PROPORTIONATE SHARE- Avoid disproportionate impact on “last one in”  IMPACT FEES

5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT HARD LINE TAKEN IN 2005 WITH FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 2011 Legislation  Schedule of capital improvements to ensure adopted LOS still required  Financially Feasible Requirement Repealed  Projects noted as funded or unfunded  Reviewed annually, updates by ordinance  Sanctions Removed for “demonstrated lack of commitment” to obligations of the CIE

6. CONCURRENCY Now Only Required for: o Sanitary Sewer o Solid Waste o Drainage o Potable Water Rescission of Optional Concurrency requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment No State Review of Rescission Still must demonstrate that Adopted LOS can be “reasonably met” for adopting optional concurrency

7. TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY Required to offer a Proportionate Share Option Prop Share cannot include payment for existing deficiencies, toll facilities Statewide Proportionate Share Formula- s.163.3180(5)(h)3 Impact fee credit required- at least 80% Required DOT consult for SIS impacts; Local Governments choose LOS for all Roads

8. CHALLENGES INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION CONCURRENCY o BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS o DOT’S ROLE o WHEN IS AN ADOPTED LOS “REASONABLY MET”

9. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING While the Law has changed, funding options unchanged Existing Sources  Gas Taxes  Constitutional Fuel Tax – 2 pennies  County Fuel Tax – 1 penny  Ninth Cent Fuel Tax – 1 penny  1st Local Option Fuel Tax – 6 pennies  Local Infrastructure Sales Tax – 1.0%

10. Gas Tax Revenues o Generally used for maintenance Ad Valorem Tax o Pavement management program and repaving o Transit maintenance TRANSPORTATIONFUNDING

11. Transportation Development Cost (Impact Fees) o Not Imposed Proportionate Share Local Infrastructure Sales Tax 1% o Bond issues for specific transportation projects o Used for other infrastructure projects TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Osceola County Existing Use of Revenues

12. Revenue Source (Red Sources Currently Used to Fund Transportation) Regional or Countywide SubareaProject Level Gas Taxes (1st Local Option Fuel Tax, Ninth Cent, Constitutional, County, etc.) Y Gas Tax (2 nd Local Option 5 cents)N Local Discretionary Sales Surtax (Charter Co.)N Local Infrastructure Sales Surtax – 1%Y Ad Valorem TaxesY MSTU / MSBUYY Public Service TaxYN Special Assessment District (SAD)N Community Development DistrictYY Tax Increment Financing (TIF) DistrictNN Community Redevelopment Area (CRA)Y Transportation Development Fee (Impact Fee)Y*N REVENUE SUMMARY - CLAY COUNTY

13. MOBILITY FEES STUDY INITIATED BY 2009 LEGISLATION REPORT BY FDOT AND FDCA NO LEGISLATION EVER ADOPTED TO GOVERN OR DIRECT USE OF MOBILITY FEES NO CASE LAW GUIDANCE