The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Certificate of concurrency. The certificate issued by the city upon finding that an application for a final development permit will not result in the reduction of the level of service standards set forth in the city comprehensive plan for public facilities and services.

City comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan adopted by Ordinance No. 89-16 on November 21, 1989, by the city council pursuant to F.S. ch. 163, pt. II, as said plan may be amended from time to time.

Concurrency management system. The procedures and processes utilized by the city to determine that final development permits, when issued, will not result in the reduction of the level of service standards set forth in the city comprehensive plan.

Corridor. The area within one-half mile of the centerline and within a one-half mile arc radius beyond the terminus of the road segment centerline, which includes properties that are subject to at least one of the following conditions:

(1)

Sole direct access. A condition where the only means of site ingress/egress is directly onto the road facility, regardless of the distance of that site from the facility;

(2)

Direct access. A condition in which one or more existing or potential site ingress/egress points makes a direct connection to the road facility and the site is within one-half (½) mile of the road facility; or

(3)

Sole indirect access. A condition where the only point of site ingress/egress is onto a public non-arterial roadway which makes its first and shortest arterial level connection onto a road facility regardless of the distance of that site from the facility.

Development. Any construction, reconstruction or use of real property which requires issuance of a preliminary or final development permit.

Final development permit. An approved building permit issued by the city.

Final local development order. A building permit issued prior to effective date of this article, under which development has commenced and has continued in good faith. A development for which a final local development order has been issued shall not require a certificate of concurrency.

Financial feasibility. Sufficient revenues are currently available or will be available from committed funding sources for the first three (3) years, or will be available from committed or planned funding sources for years four (4) and five (5), of a five-year capital improvement schedule for financing capital improvements, such as ad valorem taxes, bonds, state and federal funds, tax revenues, impact fees, and developer contributions, which are adequate to fund the projected costs of the capital improvements identified in the comprehensive plan necessary to ensure that adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained within the period covered by the five-year schedule of capital improvements. The requirement that level of service standards be achieved and maintained shall not apply if the proportionate-share process set forth in F.S. subsections 163.3180(12) and (16) is used.

Preliminary development permit. Any approved site plan, rezonings, special exception, conditional use, or any other action of the city impacting the use of land which has not received a final development permit.

Proportionate fair share. A provision that allows for development projects to mitigate the impacts through "fair-share" contributions to facilities identified for capacity improvements in the capital improvements element of the city comprehensive plan.

Public facilities and services. The following public facilities and services for which level of service standards have been established in the city comprehensive plan:

(1)

Potable water.

(2)

Wastewater.

(3)

Solid waste.

(4)

Recreational/open space.

(5)

Stormwater management.

(6)

Transportation.

Strategic intermodal system (SIS). A transportation system made up of statewide and regionally significant facilities and services including the state's largest and most significant commercial service airports, spaceport, deepwater seaports, freight rail terminals, passenger rail and intercity bus terminals, rail corridors, waterways and highways. Pinellas County SIS facilities include U.S Highway 19 from Gandy Boulevard to the Pasco County Line, Gandy Boulevard from U.S. Highway 19 to the Hillsborough County Line and the interstate system.

Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). A funding program created to improve regionally significant transportation facilities in "regional transportation areas." State funds are available throughout the state to provide incentives for local governments and the private sector to help pay for critically needed projects that benefit regional travel and commerce.

Volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. The rate of traffic flow of an intersection approach or group of lanes during a specific time interval divided by the capacity of the approach or group of lanes. Volume-to-capacity ratios provide a measure of traffic congestion and are utilized in the concurrency management system to identify congested road segments and to minimize the transportation impacts of development projects that affect them.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91; Ord. No. 2006-26, § 1, 1-2-07)

A certificate of concurrency (COC) shall be required prior to the issuance of a final development permit. A certificate of concurrency shall automatically expire simultaneously with the expiration of the final development permit to which it applies. In the event that a time extension is granted prior to the expiration of a development permit, then the accompanying certificate of concurrency shall be automatically renewed for the length of the time extension.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91)

A concurrency review may be performed by the city prior to the issuance of a preliminary development permit. The evaluation with respect to the facility or service availability will be included in the staff report or review. The concurrency evaluation performed for a preliminary development permit does not guarantee service availability during subsequent reviews. A certificate of concurrency will not be issued for a preliminary development permit.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91)

If a proposed development relates to land use of such a low intensity as to have a de minimum effect on the transportation system level of service, if any, set forth in the City of Gulfport Comprehensive Plan, the development shall be exempt from concurrency review. Development which generates one hundred and forty (140) vehicle trips per day or less shall be deemed de minimus.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91)

In order to obtain a certificate of concurrency, one (1) of the following conditions must be satisfied:

(1)

For potable water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage:

a.

The necessary public facilities and services are in place at the time the final development permit is issued;

b.

The final development permit is issued subject to the condition that the necessary public facilities and services shall be in place when the impacts of the development occur;

c.

The necessary public facilities and services are under construction at the time the final development permits are issued;

d.

Provisions of facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement. An enforceable development agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order for Florida Quality Development issued pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The agreement must guarantee that the necessary facilities and services will be in place when the impacts of the development occur.

(2)

For parks and recreation:

a.

The conditions specified in subsection (1), are satisfied; or,

b.

The necessary public facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed contract or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement between the city and a contractor, which provides for the commencement of the actual construction of the required public facilities or the provision of services within one (1) year of the issuance of the final development permit.

(3)

For transportation:

a.

The provisions of subsection (1) are satisfied; or

b.

The transportation improvement is included in the five-year schedule of capital improvements, with actual construction scheduled to commence in or before the third year of the five-year schedule of capital improvements.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91)

(a)

The City of Gulfport shall recognize the adopted levels of service, as defined in the City of Gulfport Comprehensive Plan, for each of the following public facilities and services, as set forth herein:

(1)

Potable water. The level of service standard for potable water shall be as follows:

a.

Average day: One hundred thirty (130) gallons per capita per day

b.

Maximum to average day ratio: 1.30

c.

Minimum pressure twenty (20) psig at curbside

(2)

Wastewater. The level of service standards for wastewater shall be as follows:

a.

Northwest plant: One hundred sixty-six (166) gallons per capita per day (gpcd)

b.

Southwest plant: One hundred seventy-three (173) gallons per capita per day (gpcd)

(3)

Solid Waste. The level of service standard for solid waste shall be disposal of one and three hundred two one-thousandths (1.302) tons per capita per year.

(4)

Recreation and Open space. The level of service standard for recreation and open space shall be as follows:

a.

Mini-Park: One-half (0.5) acres/one thousand (1,000) residents

b.

Neighborhood park: Two (2.0) acres/one thousand residents

c.

Community park: Two and one-half (2.5) acres/one thousand residents

d.

Open space: Ten (10.0) acres/one thousand residents

e.

Boat ramp: One lane/seven thousand residents

f.

Tennis: One court/seven thousand residents

g.

Basketball: One court/fourteen thousand residents

h.

Racquetball: One court/fourteen thousand residents

i.

Shuffleboard: One court/seven thousand residents

j.

Baseball/Softball: One field/seven thousand residents

k.

Soccer/Football: One field/fourteen thousand residents

l.

Fishing Pier: Five hundred sixty feet/fourteen thousand residents

m.

Playground: One /three thousand residents

n.

Picnic Areas: One/seven thousand residents

(5)

The level of service standard for stormwater management shall be as follows:

a.

Flood performance levels of services:

1.

Level A. For evacuation routes outside the 100-year flood plain, there shall be no significant street flooding;

2.

Level B. For areas outside the 100-year flood plain, there shall be no major residential yard flooding;

3.

Level C. For areas within the 100-year flood plain, there shall be no significant flooding.

b.

Interim water quality: Level B meets Southwest Florida Water Management District standards as set forth in Rules 40D-4 and 40D-40.

(6)

Transportation.

a.

Daily Level of Service C and peak hour Level of Service D, as defined in the city's comprehensive plan, for the following collector roadways:

1.

Gulfport Boulevard from 64th Street South to 49th Street South.

2.

49th Street from 7th Avenue South to 31st Avenue South.

3.

58th Street from 7th Avenue South to Shore Boulevard South.

4.

15th Avenue from 49th Street South to Gulfport Boulevard.

b.

An applicant for a final development permit shall provide the city with all information required by the city so as to enable a concurrency evaluation to be made. The information must include all of the data required in the "Methods and Procedures Manual for Issuing Certificates of Concurrency", a copy of which labeled Exhibit "A" is attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference. Official copies of Exhibit "A" shall be kept on file in the office of the community development department, and shall be available to the general public for inspection and copying.

c.

If the city determines that a certificate of concurrency will not be issued, that determination shall be reduced to writing, signed by the official making the determination, and sent by U.S. Mail to the applicant.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91)

Editor's note— Exhibit A referenced in § 22-18.06 is not set out at length herein, however, said exhibit is on file and available for inspection at the office of the community development department.

(a)

General requirements.

(1)

An applicant may choose to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements of the city by making a proportionate fair-share contribution, pursuant to the following requirements:

a.

The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable land development regulations; and

b.

The schedule of capital improvements in the capital improvement element (CIE) includes a transportation improvement(s) that, upon completion, will mitigate the transportation impacts of the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of this subsection.

(2)

The applicant may also choose to satisfy transportation concurrency by contributing to an improvement that, upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of this subsection, but that is not contained in the CIE where the following apply:

a.

Gulfport adopts, by resolution or ordinance, a commitment to add the improvement to the CIE no later than the next regularly scheduled update. To qualify for consideration under this subsection, the proposed improvement must be determined to be financially feasible pursuant to F.S. § 163.3180(16)(b)1, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and in compliance with the provisions of this subsection. Financial feasibility for this subsection means that additional contributions, payments or funding sources are reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed ten (10) years to fully mitigate impacts on the transportation facilities;

b.

If the funds allocated for the CIE are insufficient to fully fund construction of a transportation improvement required for the applicant to comply with the terms of this subsection, the city may enter into a binding proportionate fair-share agreement with the applicant authorizing construction of that amount of development on which the proportionate fair-share is calculated if the proportionate fair-share amount in such agreement is sufficient to pay for one or more improvements which will significantly benefit the impacted transportation system.

c.

The improvement or improvements funded by the proportionate fair-share component must be adopted into the CIE; and

d.

Any improvement project proposed to meet the applicant's fair-share obligation must meet design standards of the city, county and FDOT, as applicable.

(b)

Proportionate fair share mitigation agreement.

(1)

Upon notification that a proposed development project is subject to transportation concurrency regulations and is eligible to participate in the proportionate fair share program, the applicant shall be notified in writing of such during the site plan review process.

(2)

If the applicant chooses to exercise this concurrency option, a meeting shall be held to discuss eligibility, application submittal requirements, potential mitigation options, and related issues. If the impacted facility is on the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), then the FDOT shall be notified and invited to participate in the meeting.

(3)

Pursuant to F.S. § 163.3180(16)(e), proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the SIS requires the concurrence of the FDOT. Agreements involving improvements to SIS facilities shall require approval by FDOT.

(4)

After a mitigation project is identified and agreed upon by the city, the applicant and FDOT (if the project affects an SIS facility), a proposed proportionate fair-share obligation and binding agreement shall be prepared by the city or the applicant with direction from the city. The final agreement shall become a part of the site plan submittal which shall be delivered to the appropriate parties for review.

(c)

Determining proportionate fair-share obligation.

(1)

The proportionate fair-share obligation shall be based upon the impact a development has on a transportation facility as determined by a traffic impact analysis that assesses the volume of traffic generated by the proposed development.

(2)

A facility shall be considered impacted when the net trips generated by the proposed development meets or exceeds five (5) percent of the facility's peak hour capacity.

(3)

Should the impacted facility be operating at an LOS that meets the locally adopted LOS standard, it would not be eligible for the application of proportionate fair share provisions.

(4)

Should the impacted facility be operating at a substandard LOS based on existing conditions or as a result of the impacts of a proposed development, the facility would be identified as eligible for proportionate fair share provisions and the applicant would be notified as such.

(5)

Proportionate fair-share mitigation for concurrency impacts may include, without limitation, separately or collectively, private funds, contributions of land, and construction and contribution of facilities.

(6)

A development shall not be required to pay more than its proportionate fair-share. The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share mitigation for the impacted facilities shall not differ regardless of the method of mitigation.

(7)

The methodology used to calculate an applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation shall be as provided for in F.S. § 163.3180 (12), as follows:

The cumulative number of trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during peak hours from the complete build out of a stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum service volume (MSV) of roadways resulting from construction of an improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of developer payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted LOS.

OR

Proportionate Fair-Share = Σ[[(Development Trips;sub\sub;)/(SV Increase;sub\sub;)] × Cost;sub\sub;]

Where:

Development Trips;sub\sub; = Those trips from the stage or phase of development under review that are assigned to roadway segment "i" and have triggered a deficiency per the CMS;

SV Increase;sub\sub; = Service volume increase provided by the eligible improvement to roadway segment "i;" and

Cost;sub\sub; = Adjusted cost of the improvement to segment "i." Cost shall include all improvements and associated costs, such as design, right-of-way acquisition, planning, engineering, inspection, and physical development costs directly associated with construction at the anticipated cost in the year it will be incurred.

(8)

For the purposes of determining proportionate fair-share obligations, the city shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual cost of the improvement as obtained from the CIE or the MPO transportation improvement program. Where such information is not available, improvement cost shall be determined using one (1) of the methods described below.

a.

An analysis by the city, or its consultant, of construction costs that incorporates data from recent projects and is updated annually; or

b.

The most recent issue of FDOT Transportation Costs, as adjusted based upon the type of cross-section (urban or rural); locally available data from recent projects on acquisition, drainage and utility costs; and significant changes in the cost of materials due to unforeseeable events. Cost estimates for state road improvements not included in the adopted FDOT work program shall be determined using this method in coordination with the FDOT district.

(9)

The value of a proportionate fair share mitigation project proposed by the applicant and accepted by the city shall be determined using one (1) of the methods provided in this subsection.

(10)

The city may also accept right-of-way dedication for the proportionate fair-share payment. Credit for the dedication shall be based on fair market value established by an independent appraisal approved by the city and at no expense to the city. The applicant shall supply a drawing and legal description of the land and a certificate of title or title search of the land to the city at no expense to the city. If the estimated value of the right-of-way dedication proposed by the applicant is less than the estimated total proportionate fair-share obligation for that development, then the applicant must also pay the difference.

(d)

Impact fee credit for proportionate fair-share mitigation.

(1)

Proportionate fair-share contributions shall be applied as a credit against impact fees.

(2)

Impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share contribution shall be determined when the transportation impact fee obligation is calculated for the proposed development. Impact fees owed by the applicant will be reduced per the proportionate fair-share agreement as they become due. If the applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation is less than the development's anticipated road impact fee for the specific stage or phase of development under review, then the applicant or its successor must pay the remaining impact fee amount to the city.

(e)

Proportionate fair-share agreements.

(1)

Upon execution of a proportionate fair-share agreement, the applicant shall receive transportation concurrency approval or functional equivalent. Should the applicant fail to apply for a development permit, then the agreement shall be considered null and void, and the applicant shall be required to reapply.

(2)

Payment of the proportionate fair-share contribution is due in full prior to issuance of the final development order or recording of the final plat and shall be non-refundable. If the payment is submitted more than twelve (12) months from the date of execution of the agreement, then the proportionate fair-share cost shall be recalculated at the time of payment based on the best estimate of the construction cost of the required improvement at the time of payment.

(3)

All proportionate fair share mitigation improvements authorized under this subsection shall be completed prior to issuance of a preliminary development permit, or as otherwise established in a binding agreement that is accompanied by a security instrument that is sufficient to ensure the completion of all required improvements. It is the intent of this subsection that any required improvements be completed before issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy.

(4)

Dedication of necessary rights-of-way for facility improvements pursuant to a proportionate fair-share agreement shall be completed prior to issuance of the final development permit or recording of the final plat.

(5)

Any requested change to a development project subsequent to a development order may be subject to additional proportionate fair-share contributions to the extent the change would generate additional traffic that would require mitigation.

(6)

Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the proportionate fair-share agreement at any time prior to the execution of the agreement.

(7)

The city may enter into proportionate fair-share agreements for selected corridor improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants on improvements to a shared transportation facility.

(f)

Appropriation of fair-share revenues.

(1)

Proportionate fair-share revenues shall be placed in the appropriate project account for funding of scheduled improvements in the CIE, or as otherwise established in the terms of the proportionate fair-share agreement. Proportionate fair-share revenues may be used for operational improvements prior to construction of the capacity project from which the proportionate fair-share revenues were derived. Proportionate fair-share revenues may also be used as the fifty (50) percent local match for funding under the FDOT transportation regional incentive program (TRIP).

(2)

In the event a scheduled proportionate fair share improvement is removed from the CIE, then the revenues collected for its construction may be applied toward the construction of another improvement within the same corridor or planning sector that would mitigate the impacts of development.

(3)

Where an impacted facility has been designated as a regionally significant transportation facility in an adopted regional transportation plan as provided in F.S. § 339.155, the city may coordinate with other impacted jurisdictions and agencies to apply proportionate fair-share contributions and public contributions to seek funding for improving the impacted regional facility under the FDOT TRIP. Such coordination shall be ratified by the city through an interlocal agreement that establishes a procedure for earmarking the developer contributions for this purpose.

(4)

Where an applicant constructs a transportation facility that exceeds said applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation, the city shall reimburse the applicant for the excess contribution using one (1) or more of the following methods:

a.

An impact fee credit account may be established for the applicant in the amount of the excess contribution, a portion or all of which may be assigned and reassigned under the terms and conditions acceptable to the city;

b.

An account may be established for the applicant for the purpose of reimbursing the applicant for the excess contribution with proportionate fair-share payments from future applicants on the facility; or

c.

The city may compensate the applicant for the excess contribution through payment or some combination of means acceptable to the city and the applicant.

(g)

Cross jurisdictional impacts.

(1)

In the interest of intergovernmental coordination and to reflect the shared responsibilities for managing development and concurrency, the city may enter into an agreement with one (1) or more adjacent local governments to address cross-jurisdictional impacts of development on multi-jurisdictional transportation facilities. The agreement shall provide for application of the methodology in this subsection to address the cross-jurisdictional transportation impacts of development.

(2)

A development application submitted subject to transportation concurrency requirements and meeting all of the criteria listed below shall be subject to this subsection.

a.

All or part of the proposed development is located within an area or corridor designated by an adjacent local government where development projects are subject to transportation concurrency requirements in accordance with their respective land development codes.

b.

If the additional traffic from the proposed development would use five (5) percent or more of the adopted peak hour LOS maximum service volume of a multi-jurisdictional transportation facility within the concurrency jurisdiction of the adjacent local government ("impacted multi-jurisdictional facility").

c.

The impacted multi-jurisdictional facility is projected to be operating below the level of service standard, adopted by the adjacent local government, when the traffic from the proposed development is included.

(3)

Upon identification of an impacted multi-jurisdictional facility, the city shall notify the applicant and the affected adjacent local government in writing of the opportunity to derive an additional proportionate fair-share contribution, based on the projected impacts of the proposed development on the impacted adjacent facility.

(4)

The adjacent local government shall have up to ninety (90) days in which to notify the city of a proposed specific proportionate fair-share obligation, and the intended use of the funds when received. The adjacent local government shall provide reasonable justification that both the amount of the payment and its intended use comply with the requirements of F.S. § 163.3180(16). Should the adjacent local government decline proportionate fair-share mitigation under this subsection, then the provisions of this subsection would not apply and the applicant would be subject only to the proportionate fair share requirements of the city.

(5)

If the subject application is subsequently approved by the city, the approval shall include a condition that the applicant provides, prior to the issuance of any building permit covered by that application, evidence that the proportionate fair-share obligation to the adjacent local government has been satisfied.

(Ord. No. 2006-26, § 2, 1-2-07)

(a)

A denial of a certificate of concurrency may be appealed by the applicant to the board of adjustment. A notice to appeal the denial of the certificate of concurrency shall be submitted by the applicant to the building official within twenty (20) days from the date of the written denial of the certificate of concurrency. The building official shall schedule the appeal to be heard at a public meeting by the board of adjustment, as either a regular or special meeting, and shall transmit to the board of adjustment all papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. The board of adjustment shall notify the applicant in writing of the date, time and location of the board of adjustment meeting at which the appeal shall be heard. During the appeal proceeding, the applicant may appear in person or be represented by an agent or attorney. Applicants shall pay the fees set for appeals by the city council.

(b)

The applicant shall have the burden of proof to establish by the presentation of substantial competent evidence to the board of adjustment:

(1)

That there was an error in the technical determination made by the city administration to deny the certificate of concurrency; or,

(2)

That one (1) or more of the conditions in section 22-18.06 of this Code are satisfied, such that the necessary public facilities and services will be available concurrent with the impact of the development.

(c)

Before recommending issuance of a certificate of concurrency, the board of adjustment shall make specific findings that the certificate of concurrency satisfies section 22-18.06 of this Code. The affirmative vote of three (3) members of the board of adjustment shall be necessary to recommend issuance of a certificate of concurrency. Action taken by the board of adjustment to affirm, reverse or modify the administrative decision to deny the certificate of concurrency shall be documented in writing. The written decision of the board of adjustment shall be submitted to city council for final action. The city clerk shall give written notice to the applicant of the date, time and location of the city council meeting considering the certificate of concurrency. The city council, upon reviewing the record and findings of the board of adjustment, may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the board of adjustment. If deemed necessary by the city council, in order to supplement the record, the city council may receive additional testimony and may make inquiry of the applicant and administrative staff. The decision of the city council shall be reduced to writing in the form of a resolution and shall be final upon the date of execution of the resolution by the mayor or vice mayor.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91; Ord. No. 2006-26, § 2, 1-2-07)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 2006-26, § 2, amended the Code by renumbering former § 22-18.07 as a new § 22-18.08.

The City of Gulfport, as the recipient of services from other jurisdictions, shall recognize the levels of service provided by such entities in accordance with the adopted policies of the City of Gulfport Comprehensive Plan. The city shall also insure that all development within its jurisdiction shall be consistent with the adopted levels of service of the providing jurisdiction.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91; Ord. No. 2006-26, § 3, 1-2-07)

Editor's note— Sections 22-18.08—22-18.10 are derived from Ord. No. 91-4, § 2, adopted May 7, 1991, which did not specify manner of codification, but has been included herein at the discretion of the editor. Subsequently, Ord. No. 2006-26, §§ 3—5, adopted January 2, 2007, renumbered former §§ 22-18.08—22-18.10 as §§ 22-18.09—22-18.11.

(a)

The city shall monitor the impacts of development on potable water, wastewater, solid waste, and recreation and open space levels of service on a quarterly basis. The monitoring reports shall be received by the city manager. The city shall furnish to Pinellas County and the city of St. Petersburg, or any service providers, a statement of impacts for the aforesaid facilities and services, as requested by each jurisdiction.

(b)

The city shall monitor the impacts of development on stormwater management and transportation on a permit-by-permit basis.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91; Ord. No. 2006-26, § 4, 1-2-07)

Note— See editor's note, § 22-18.09.

Reasonable fees for conducting a concurrency review, providing written information, and for providing services to support the concurrency management program may be charged and collected upon the establishment of a schedule of reasonable fees by ordinance of the city council.

(Ord. No. 91-4, § 1, 5-7-91; Ord. No. 2006-26, § 5, 1-2-07)

Note— See editor's note, § 22-18.09.