Public facilities and services needed to support development shall be available concurrent with the impacts of such development. The provisions of this section are designed to provide a systematic process for the review and evaluation of all proposed development for its impact on basic public facilities and services.

The burden of showing compliance with the adopted levels of service and meeting the concurrency test shall be upon the applicant.

The following development orders and permits are exempt from this article, and may commence development without a determination of capacity:

(A)

Any addition to a residence which creates no additional impact on public facilities;

(B)

Interior completion of a shell-only structure for uses with same or less intensity as identified on an approved site plan;

(C)

Interior renovations with no change in use;

(D)

Accessory structure that create no additional impact on public facilities;

(E)

Storage addition to a nonresidential use which creates no additional impact on public facilities;

(F)

Replacement structure which create no additional impact, except for a nonconforming use, in accordance with the Land Development Code provisions on nonconforming uses;

(G)

Temporary construction trailers;

(H)

Wells and septic tanks;

(I)

Driveway or resurfacing parking lot paving;

(J)

Re-roofing of structures;

(K)

Demolitions;

(L)

Single-family and duplex residences on lots which were platted prior to adoption of this code;

(M)

The following items: public utility and service structures, attached or detached guest house to a residence, accessory parking for passenger vehicles when intended for a permitted adjacent commercial use;

(N)

Development permits including, specifically, building permits, which do not require an additional final development order prior to their issuance shall not require a concurrency review as a condition of issuance of said permits;

(O)

Sign permits;

(P)

Development that is determined to be vested.

(A)

Generally. Applicants for development orders who have been determined to possess vested rights from a previously issued development order will be allowed to proceed with development even though they may not pass the concurrency test. A concurrency test still needs to be performed by staff in order to calculate the impact of the vested development on remaining capacity, and any "liens" against future capacity if existing capacity is insufficient. This concurrency analysis will not affect the vested development, but the capacity used by vested development will not be available for development that is not vested.

(B)

Vesting of Final Development Orders. All final development orders issued prior to November 1, 1992 and holding vested rights consistent with Policy 8A-1.2.2 of the City of Tavares Comprehensive Plan shall be exempt from the concurrency test. Necessary Findings. Some properties may not be subject to restrictions imposed by concurrency if the property is vested prior to the implementation of the concurrency management system. Florida case law establishes a three (3) part test for determining vested development rights. All three (3) of the following must be met in order to be vested for development:

(A)

Good faith reliance on an act or omission of the City;

(B)

Substantial expenditures or obligations subsequent to reliance on an act or omission of the City; and,

(C)

Highly inequitable to deny development (i.e., private hardship outweighs the public hardship).

(C)

Planned Unit Developments. Final approval of a Planned Unit Development ("PUD"), granted prior to August 14, 1991, shall have density and intensity development rights for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of the PUD ordinance provided:

1.

The density and intensity development rights are limited to the express terms of the PUD shall result in a loss of this status; provided, however, that a request for a reduction in density or intensity which would result in the PUD being more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, shall not cause the PUD to lose its density or intensity development rights;

2.

The PUD approval has not otherwise become void by operation of the applicable PUD zoning ordinance; and

3.

Development for the PUD started prior to August 14, 1991 and has continued in good faith or the owner has made such substantial expenditures or incurred such substantial obligations that it would be inequitable to deny development.

(D)

Plats Recorded on or after January 1, 1974. Plats recorded on or after January 1, 1974, which have remained undeveloped, shall be vested for residential density development rights.

(E)

Plats Recorded prior to January 1, 1974. Plats recorded prior to January 1, 1974, for which building permit(s) within the platted subdivision have been issued are vested for residential density development rights.

Applicability. The City of Tavares requires concurrency review and determination with the following applications for development permits:

(A)

Building Permit

(B)

Site and Development Plan

(C)

Final Plat

(D)

Development Orders for Developments of Regional Impact.

(A)

General. For each public facility, a determination of available capacity shall be made. If the capacity for that specific facility exceeds the projected demand of the proposed development, within the applicable geographic scope of that facility, a Determination of Concurrency (DOC) shall be issued. If the capacity for that specific facility is less than the projected demand of the proposed development, a Determination of Concurrency cannot be issued for the application as submitted. If the project requires any other development permit, a copy of the DOC shall be included with any future application for development permit. A separate concurrency review may be required for each development permit issued for the same project. If the application is not concurrent, that determination shall be reduced to writing, signed by the official making the determination, and sent by U.S. Mail to the applicant. The Determination of Concurrency does not provide for a reservation of capacity.

(B)

Expiration of a Determination of Concurrency. The City of Tavares has specific time limits for development orders and the concurrency determination will be valid for the same period of time as they underlying development order.

(C)

Resubmission of Concurrency Application. Applications for development orders that are denied because of insufficient capacity of public facilities may be resubmitted if the applicant of the denied development order intends to provide all public facilities to comply with capacity requirements or enters into a development agreement with the City or other public facility provider for the purpose of contributing to the provision of the public facility required.

(D)

Transfer of Determination of Capacity. The capacity test is site specific and cannot be transferred to another piece of property. It can be transferred to subsequent development orders for the same parcel, and to subsequent owners of the same parcel.

The City of Tavares shall review applications for development and a development permit will be issued only if the proposed development does not lower the existing level of service (LOS) of a facility/service below the adopted LOS in the Tavares Comprehensive Plan or appropriate governing document. A project shall be deemed concurrent if one of the following standards is met:

(A)

The necessary public facilities and services are in place at the time the Development Permit is issued; or

(B)

The necessary facilities and services will be in place at the time the impacts of development occur; or

(C)

The necessary public facilities and services are under construction at the time the Development Permit is issued; or

(D)

The necessary public facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Sections 163.3220 through 163.3243, Florida Statutes; or

(E)

The necessary public facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed contract between the City and a contractor which provides for the commencement of the actual construction of the required facilities or the provision of services within one (1) year of the issuance of the development permit.

(F)

The appropriate governing agency has certified that capacity is available.

A concurrency determination shall be made for the following public facilities/services: Potable water; wastewater; solid waste; recreation/open space; stormwater management; schools and transportation.

In general, concurrency shall be determined by comparing the available capacity of a facility or service to the demand created by the proposed project.

The following Level of Services (LOS) calculations shall be used to determine the projected demand of the proposed project on the applicable public facility/service. The calculations are listed by facility/service type.

(A)

Potable Water. Adopted LOS = 325 gal/day/ERU (325 gal × ERU conversion × units = demand)

(B)

Wastewater. Adopted LOS = 250 gal/day/ERU

(250 gal × ERU conversion × units = demand)

(C)

Solid Waste. Adopted LOS = 4.57 lbs./ERU

(4.57 lbs. × ERU conversion × units = demand)

(D)

Recreation/Open Space. Adopted LOS = 1.7 acres/1000 residents.

(Project population = units × 2.32 persons/household; Project population/LOS = demand)

(E)

Stormwater Management.

1.

Bridges. Hydraulic Profile shall be below the top cord of the bridge for the 50-year, 24-hour storm.

2.

Stormwater detention and retention ponds, which are contributory to land-locked areas with no positive outlet, shall be designed for the 25-year, 96-hour storm.

3.

Canals, ditches, or culverts external to the development, and stormwater detention or retention basins which are not part of a project that is contributory to a land-locked area with no positive outlet, shall be designed for the 25-year, 24-hour storm.

4.

Stormwater flooding for arterial and collector roadways shall not exceed one-half (½) of the roadway width. For local roads, stormwater flooding shall not exceed the crown of the road for the 10-year, 24-hour storm

5.

Storm sewers and roadside swales shall be designed such that the hydraulic gradient is 1.0 foot below the gutter line or edge of pavement for arterial roadways; and 0.5 feet below the gutter line or edge of the pavement for collector and local roadways for the 10-year, 24-hour storm.

(F)

Transportation. Refer to the City of Tavares "Taking Flight" Comprehensive Plan for the Transportation and Mobility Element Policy 2-3.2 & Poly 2-3.3.

(G)

Schools. Refer to Section 10-25 and the Lake County School District Growth Planning Department.

(A)

The City of Tavares shall regulate traffic concurrency through the Lake-Sumter County Metropolitan Planning Organization's Traffic Impact Study Methodology and Guidelines, or an alternative City approved Traffic Methodology. This document together with the City of Tavares' Comprehensive Plan shall be referred to for the purpose of identifying the City's adopted level of service standards.

If the applicant claims the standards provided in the demand calculations are not applicable to the proposed project, the applicant shall submit appropriate documentation supporting the proposed alternative demand calculation to the City. Any alternative calculation standard shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator or his designee.

The applicant may appeal the denial of a Determination of Concurrency to City Council for all facilities except those related to School capacity. The appeal shall be made in accordance with the City's Land Development Regulations as specified in Chapter 4, Division IV, Appeal Procedures.

Reservation of capacity of a concurrency monitored public facility shall only occur when the associated capital charge is paid.

The purpose of Transportation Proportionate Fair Share is to establish a method whereby the impacts of development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors, to be known as the Proportionate Fair-Share Program, as required by and in a manner consistent with § 163.3180, F.S., or its successor. The Lake Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Concurrency Management System Impact Study Methodology and this section will provide methods and procedures for the City, Lake County and the other impacted municipalities to coordinate the Proportionate Fair Share Program.

The Proportionate Fair-Share Program shall apply to all proposed developments in the City of Tavares that have been notified of a transportation concurrency deficiency on a transportation facility in the Concurrency Management System (CMS).

(a)

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

(1)

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

(2)

The five-year schedule of capital improvements in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) or the schedule of capital improvements for the long-term CMS includes a transportation improvement(s) that, upon completion, will satisfy the then existing requirements of the applicable CMS. The provisions of Section 10-18(b) may apply if a project or projects needed to satisfy concurrency are not presently contained within the applicable CIE(s) or the adopted long- term schedule of capital improvements.

(3)

A proportionate share contribution may involve the addition of transportation capacity through several means including but not limited to: the physical widening and/or reconstruction of a roadway to add capacity; the addition of transportation capacity through creating new reliever roadways; new network additions; contributing to new transit capital facilities (e.g., bus rapid transit corridor); contributing to the expansion of bus fleets to increase service frequency, other contributions to mass transit system expenses; or any other means determined by the County and/or Municipality to add transportation capacity sufficient to mitigate impacts.

(b)

The City of Tavares may choose to allow an applicant to satisfy transportation concurrency through the Proportionate Fair-Share Program by approving the applicant's contribution to an improvement or improvements that, upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of the applicable CMS(s), but is notcontained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the CIE(s) or a long-term schedule of capital improvements for an adopted long-term CMS, where the following apply:

(1)

The City adopts, by resolution or ordinance, a commitment to add the improvement to the schedule of capital improvements in the CIE or long-term schedule of capital improvements for an adopted long-term CMS no later than the next regularly scheduled update. To qualify for consideration under this section, the proposed improvement must be reviewed by the appropriate jurisdictions and agencies and must be determined to be financially feasible pursuant to § 163.3180(16)(b)1, F.S., or its successor, consistent with the comprehensive plan of each jurisdiction within which any portion of the proposed improvement would lie, and in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Financial feasibility for this section means that additional contributions, payments or funding sources are reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed 10 years to fully mitigate impacts on the transportation facilities. If a transportation facility proposed for the Proportionate Share Program is under the jurisdiction of another entity, such as the County or FDOT, the proposed improvement shall be included in the five-year Work Program of that jurisdiction or, when the improvement is not in the Work Program, through resolution or ordinance, there shall be adoption of a commitment to add the improvement to the schedule of capital improvements in the CIE or long-term schedule of capital improvements for an adopted long-term CMS no later than the next regularly scheduled update.

(2)

If the funds allocated for the schedule of capital improvements in the CIE are insufficient to fund construction of a transportation improvement required by the CMS, the County and/or Municipality may still enter into a binding proportionate fair-share agreement with the applicant. The agreement may authorize construction of the development if the proportionate fair-share amount in such agreement is determined to be sufficient to pay for improvements which will, in the opinion of the governing body of each governmental entity or entities maintaining the transportation facilities, significantly benefit the impacted transportation system. The improvement(s) funded by the proportionate fair-share component must, for each affected local jurisdiction, be adopted into the capital improvements schedule of the comprehensive plan or the long-term schedule of capital improvements for an adopted long-term concurrency management system at the next annual capital improvements element update.

(c)

Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer's fair-share obligation must meet design standards of the jurisdiction within which the majority of the planned improvements would be located for locally maintained roadways and those of the FDOT for the state and federal highway system.

(d)

Pursuant to Section 163.3177, F.S., or its successor, the CIE must include transportation improvements included in the Lake Sumter MPO Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) to the extent that such improvements are relied upon to ensure concurrency and financial feasibility. If the County or a Municipality is relying upon scheduled improvements to a facility maintained by the other to ensure concurrency and financial feasibility, the scheduled improvements from the other jurisdiction's Work Program must be included in the CIE of the local government issuing the development order. All CIEs must also be coordinated with the adopted Lake Sumter MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for planning purposes.

(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 an adjacent local government(s) to address cross jurisdictional impacts of development on transportation facilities. The agreement shall provide for application of the methodology in this section to address the cross jurisdictional transportation impacts of development.

(2)

A development application shall be subject to this section when a transportation concurrency determination is made that indicates the development will have an adverse impact on the adopted level of service standard on one or more facilities in a neighboring jurisdiction.

(3)

Upon identification of an impacted transportation facility, the City shall notify the applicant and the other affected jurisdictions in writing of a potential proportionate fair-share agreement, based on the projected impacts of the proposed development on the facility.

(4)

Pursuant to policies in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's comprehensive plan and applicable policies in the Lake Sumter MPO 2045 LRTP, as amended, the City shall coordinate with affected jurisdictions, including FDOT, regarding mitigation to impacted facilities. Proportionate fair-share contributions should be applied toward the impacted facility. However, impacted facilities may be maintained by an agency other than the local government executing the proportionate fair-share agreement (e.g., a county or state road within the city limits). Therefore, each local government shall work with other affected agencies to establish a procedure for coordinating mitigation to impacted facilities that are maintained by another agency. An interlocal agreement may be established with other affected jurisdictions for this purpose.

(1)

Upon notification of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency, the applicant shall be notified in writing of the opportunity to satisfy transportation concurrency through the Proportionate Fair-Share Program pursuant to this article.

(2)

Prior to submitting an application for a proportionate fair-share agreement, a pre-application meeting shall be held with all affected jurisdictions to discuss eligibility, application submittal requirements, potential mitigation options, and related issues. The appropriate parties for review of a proposed proportionate fair share agreement include the jurisdiction maintaining the transportation facility that is subject to the agreement, if other than the City. If the impacted facility is a state facility, then FDOT will be invited to participate in the pre-application meeting.

(3)

The City Administrator or designee shall review the application and certify that the application is sufficient and complete within 10 business days. If an application is determined to be insufficient, incomplete or inconsistent with the general requirements of the Proportionate Fair-Share Program, then the applicant will be notified in writing of the reasons for such deficiencies within 10 business days of submittal of the application. If such deficiencies are not remedied by the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the written notification, then the application will be deemed abandoned. The City may, in its discretion, grant an extension of time not to exceed 60 days to cure such deficiencies, provided that the applicant has shown good cause for requesting the extension and has taken reasonable steps to remedy the deficiencies.

(4)

Pursuant to Section 163.3180(16)(e), F.S., or its successor, proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) requires the approval of FDOT. The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement between the applicant and FDOT for inclusion in the proportionate fair-share agreement.

(5)

When an application is deemed sufficient, complete, and eligible, the applicant shall be advised in writing and a proposed proportionate fair-share obligation and binding agreement will be prepared by the City and delivered to the appropriate parties for review no later than 60 days from the date which the applicant received the notification of a sufficient application and no fewer than 14 days prior to the governing body meeting when the agreement will be considered. The jurisdiction may need to enter into an agreement with FDOT as appropriate.

(6)

The City shall notify the applicant regarding the date of the city council meeting when the agreement will be considered for final approval. No proportionate fair-share agreement will be effective until approved by the applicable governing body.

(a)

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

(b)

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.

(c)

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

Proportionate Fair-Share = (Development Trips / (SV Increase) × Cost) Where:

Development Trips = 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; only those trips that trigger a concurrency deficiency will be included in the proportionate fair-share calculation;

SV Increase i v= Service volume increase contributed by the eligible improvement to roadway segment "i";

Cost = 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.

(1)

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 cost estimates contained in the CIE, the Lake County Transportation Construction Program or the FDOT Work Program. Where such information is not available, improvement cost shall be determined by the following method: an analysis by the jurisdiction maintaining the facility of costs by cross section type that incorporates data from recent projects and is updated annually and approved by the jurisdiction. In order to accommodate increases in construction material costs, project costs shall be adjusted.

(d)

If the City has accepted an improvement project proposed by the applicant, then the value of the improvement shall be determined using one of the methods provided in this section.

(e)

If the City has accepted right-of-way dedication for the proportionate fair-share payment, credit for the dedication of the non-site related right-of-way shall be valued on the date of the dedication at 120 percent of the most recent assessed value by the Lake County property appraiser or, at the option of the applicant, by fair market value established by an independent appraisal approved by the City and at no expense to the City. The applicant shall supply a survey and legal description of the land and a determination 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 City estimated total proportionate fair-share obligation for that development, then the applicant must also pay the difference. Prior to purchase or acquisition of any real estate or acceptance of donations of real estate intended to be used for the proportionate fair-share, public or private partners should contact FDOT for essential information about compliance with federal law and regulations.

(1)

Proportionate fair share contributions shall be applied as a credit against impact fees to the extent that all or a portion of the proportionate fair-share mitigation is used to address the same capital infrastructure improvements contemplated by the City's impact fee ordinance. Applicants would be eligible for impact fee credit for that portion of their proportionate fair-share payment that applies to a segment for which the City's transportation impact fee is being applied.

(2)

Impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share contribution will 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 per the Impact Fee Ordinance of the jurisdiction within which the affected roadway facility lies, and if the facility lies within more than one jurisdiction, the impact fee credits shall be prorated accordingly. 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 applicable jurisdiction entitled to collect impact fees, pursuant to the requirements of the applicable impact fee ordinances.

(3)

The proportionate fair-share obligation is intended to mitigate the transportation impacts of a proposed development at a specific location. As a result, any road impact fee credit based upon proportionate fair-share contributions for a proposed development cannot be transferred to any other location unless provided for within the local impact fee ordinance.

(1)

Upon execution of a proportionate fair-share agreement (Agreement), the applicant shall receive a determination of concurrency from the City. Should the applicant fail to apply for a development order within 12 months of the execution of the Agreement, the determination of concurrency shall be considered null and void, and the applicant shall be required to reapply for a concurrency determination. In addition, if the proposed development's impacts were the only impacts causing the potential deficient operation of the facility, the specific project may be removed from the CIE.

(2)

Payment of the proportionate fair-share contribution is due in full prior to issuance of the final development order which for the purposes of this section shall be recording of the final plat if the property to be developed is being subdivided, approval of the final site plan for a development which entails multiple residential or commercial units but is not being subdivided, and issuance of a building permit if the development consists of a single use structure on land not being subdivided. Once paid, contributions shall be non-refundable. If the payment is submitted more than 6 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, pursuant to this ordinance and adjusted accordingly.

(3)

All transportation improvements undertaken by the developer authorized under this ordinance must be completed prior to issuance of a final development order, 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. Any security instrument, in a form acceptable to the City, shall be for at least 150% of the estimated cost of improvements to be completed by the developer, and shall be subject to adjustment annually to take into account any increases in costs of materials and construction. The security instrument shall be irrevocable and shall remain in effect until the developer fully completes the required improvements.

(4)

Dedication of necessary right-of-way for facility improvements pursuant to a proportionate fair-share agreement must be completed prior to issuance of the final development order as provided above.

(5)

Any requested change to a development project subsequent to a development order shall be subject to additional proportionate fair-share contributions to the extent the change would generate additional impacts 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. The application fee and any associated advertising costs to the City or any other jurisdiction shall be non-refundable.

(7)

The County or Municipality may enter into proportionate fair-share agreements with multiple applicants for selected corridor improvements to a shared transportation facility.

(a)

Proportionate fair-share revenues shall be placed in the appropriate project account of the local government(s) entitled to share in the revenues for funding of scheduled improvements in the County or Municipal CIE, or as otherwise established in the terms of the proportionate fair-share agreement. At the discretion of the local government, 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 50% local match for funding under the FDOT Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP).

(b)

In the event a scheduled facility improvement is removed from the CIE, the revenues collected for its construction may be applied toward the construction of another improvement within that same corridor or sector that would mitigate the impacts of development pursuant to the requirements of this article.

(c)

Where an impacted facility has been designated as a regionally significant transportation facility on the Lake-Sumter MPO Regionally Significant Corridors Map, then the County or City may coordinate with other impacted jurisdictions and agencies to apply proportionate fair-share contributions to seek funding for improving the impacted regional facility under the FDOT TRIP. Such coordination shall be ratified by the County and City through an interlocal agreement that establishes a procedure for earmarking of the developer contributions for this purpose.

(d)

Where an applicant constructs a transportation facility that exceeds the applicant's proportionate fair- share obligation calculated under this article, the County or Municipality shall reimburse the applicant for the excess contribution paid to it using one or more of the following methods:

(1)

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 to subsequent owners of the land to be developed, under the terms and conditions acceptable to the County or Municipality, but which must run with the land and may not be assigned in gross to the developer of any other parcel of property.

(2)

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.

(3)

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

(1)

CSA. The term CSA refers to Concurrency Service Area. Concurrency Service Area for the purpose of School Concurrency means the area of the County within which the level of service will be measured from school concurrency purposes as adopted in First Amended Interlocal Agreement between Lake County, Lake County School Board and Municipalities for School Facilities Planning and Siting.

(2)

FISH. The term FISH refers to "Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH)," current edition, and that is published by the Florida Department of Education, Office of Educational Facilities.

(3)

Determination of Authenticity. This term refers to an acknowledgement prepared by the City of Tavares which serves to verify to the Lake County School Board that a certain development has accurately represented its development density and intensity for the purpose of assessing public school impacts.

(A)

It is the intent of this section to implement the Interlocal Agreement entitled the First Amended Interlocal Agreement between Lake County, the Lake County School Board and the Municipalities for School Facilities Planning and Siting dated December 26, 2007 as incorporated herein by reference (hereafter referred to as the "Agreement").

(B)

Unless otherwise provided herein, the stipulations outlined in the Agreement shall apply to all development orders with five or more residential dwelling units and any amendment to an existing development order that may increase student enrollment projections.

The following residential uses shall be considered exempt from the requirements of school concurrency (unless the development approval for such use approved by the City specifically required it to meet School Concurrency).

1.

Single family lots having received final plat approval prior to the effective date of the City's School Concurrency Ordinance or other lots which the City has determined are vested based on statutory or common law vesting.

2.

Multi-family residential development having received final site plan approval prior to the effective date of the City's School Concurrency Ordinance or other multi-family residential development which the City has determined is vested based on statutory or common law vesting.

3.

Amendments to residential development approvals issued prior to the effective date of the City's School Concurrency Ordinance, which do not increase the number of residential units or change the type of residential units proposed.

4.

Age restricted communities (as defined by the Lake County School Board) that are subject to deed restrictions prohibiting the permanent occupancy of residents under the age of eighteen (18). Such deed restrictions must be recorded and must be irrevocable for a period of at least fifty (50) years.

5.

Plats or residential site plans which include four (4) or less units. For purposes of this section, a property owner may not divide his property in to several developments in order to claim exemption as allowed by this section. In making a determination as to whether a property is exempt under this section, the City shall consider in addition to the ownership at the time of the application the ownership as of the date of the adoption of this agreement.

(C)

To ensure the capacity of schools is sufficient to support student growth at the adopted Level of Service for each year of the five-year planning period and through the long term planning period of Lake County. After June 1, 2008, the following Level of Service standard shall be established for all schools of each type within each CSA and each individual school:

1.

Elementary: 100% of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125% of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

2.

Middle: 100% of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125% of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

3.

High: 100% of permanent FISH capacity. If core dining capacity is available in excess of FISH capacity, the school capacity shall be increased up to 125% of FISH capacity by adding seats located in temporary student stations so long as the total capacity does not exceed core dining capacity.

a.

For purposes of (1), (2), and (3) above, non-conversion charter schools shall be counted as FISH capacity if an agreement has been entered between the charter school and the School Board which requires the school facility to be constructed in accordance with Florida Department of Education standards for public schools; which provides that the school facility will be provided to the School Board for its use if the charter school fails to operate satisfactorily; and, which provides that if there are financing arrangements for the school, the School Board will be able to operate the school without having to be responsible for such financing costs or that the School Board is willing and able to accept responsibility for such costs.

b.

For purposes of (1), (2) and (3) above, a developer financed public school shall be counted as FISH capacity if an agreement has been entered between the developer and the School Board which requires the school facility to be constructed in accordance with Florida Department of Education standards for public schools; which requires that the Developer transfer the school facility to the School Board upon its completion; and, which provides that if there are financing arrangements for the school, the School Board will be able to operate the school without having to be responsible for such financing costs or that the School Board is willing and able to accept responsibility for such costs.

(D)

The following procedures will be utilized to obtain a School Concurrency Determination from the Lake County School Board and to provide for Proportionate Share mitigations if a development proposal is determined not to be in compliance.

1.

A completed application provided by and delivered to the Lake County School Board must be submitted concurrent with any application to the City for a final development order by an applicant proposing any non-exempt residential development.

2.

Within three days of submitting to the School Board, the applicant must present a copy of the application to the City. The City shall provide a Determination of Authenticity to the School Board within three days of receiving the application.

3.

The School Board shall review the application in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.5.2 of the Agreement and base the concurrency determination on standards outlined in Section 5.5.3 of the Agreement.

4.

No development order shall be approved unless a Letter of Determination of Concurrency has been issued by the School Board finding the development in compliance.

5.

Once the School Board has reviewed the application it shall issue a Letter of Determination of Concurrency within 30 days if the impact of the proposed developments student growth does not cause the adopted Level of Service to be exceeded.

6.

If the development is not in compliance, the Letter of Determination of Concurrency shall detail why the development is not in compliance and shall offer the applicant the opportunity to enter into a 90 day negotiation period in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.6 of the Agreement.

7.

During the 90 day negotiation period the applicant may meet with the School Board to attempt to negotiate a Proportionate Share agreement that will mitigate the impact from the development. The School Board has sole discretion over whether to enter into a Proportionate Share agreement.

a.

Mitigation shall be limited to those options which the School Board recognizes and assumes the responsibility to operate and which will maintain the adopted Level of Service standards for the first five years from receipt of the School Boards Letter of Determination of Concurrency.

b.

The City of Tavares shall have the opportunity to review the mitigation options.

c.

The City Council shall approve all Proportionate Share Agreements.

8.

If mitigation is not agreed to, the Letter of Determination of Concurrency shall detail why mitigation proposals were rejected and detail why the development is not in compliance. In this case, no development order shall be issued.

9.

If the School Board and the applicant agree to mitigation, the Letter of Determination of Concurrency shall be issued based on the agreed mitigation measures and an agreement between the School Board, the City and the applicant.

10.

A Letter of Determination for School Concurrency, finding the development in compliance, issued by the School Board shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance unless extended by the School Board. Once the development order is issued, the concurrency determination shall run with the development order.

11.

If the Letter of Determination of Concurrency requires conditions or mitigation to be placed on the development, the development order issued by the City of Tavares shall incorporate conditions as set forth by the School Board.

12.

If the Letter of Determination of Concurrency requires the development to be phased to school construction or other mitigation, the conditions of approval of the development order shall reflect the phasing requirements by withholding subsequent development orders for building permits.

13.

In no case shall a development order be issued unless provisions are made through conditions of approval or by agreement between the School Board, the City and the applicant to provide Performance Security when required.