The potable water subelement of the city's Comprehensive Plan contains the following level of service requirements for the distribution of potable water:

The sanitary sewer subelement of the city's Comprehensive Plan contains the following level of service requirements for collection and treatment of wastewater:

The traffic circulation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan contains the following level of service requirements for roadways in the city:

(Ord. 998-08, passed 2-11-2008)

The drainage subelement of the city's Comprehensive Plan contains the following level of service requirements for storm water facility design and drainage plans: all development or redevelopment is to retain the runoff from a 25-year storm event with an intensity of 3.6 inches per hour.

(A)

The city's Sanitation Department operates a solid waste collection system. Yard trash is disposed of in a city-owned composting facility. Domestic waste is disposed of in the Pasco County landfill east of Dade City. Identified hazardous wastes, such as motor oil and batteries, are stored at the city garage and ultimately collected by commercial services. The only commercial solid waste services licensed to operate within the city are large roll-off dumpsters used at construction sites and for the East Pasco Medical Center.

(B)

The city has entered into an interlocal agreement to convey all solid waste which cannot be disposed by composting to Pasco County resource recovery facility by 9/30/93. This facility has been designed by Pasco County with a level of service assumption of one and one-half tons of solid waste per year per dwelling unit.

The recreation and open space element of the city's Comprehensive Plan contains the following recreational facility standards:

Table 5.07.01

Source: Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, National Recreational and Park Association, 1983.

(A)

No development activity may be approved unless it is found that the development is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and that the provision of certain public facilities will be available at the prescribed levels of service concurrent with the impact of the development on those facilities.

(B)

If a development proposal is found to meet all the requirements of this code, it shall be presumed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in all respects except for compliance with the concurrency requirements. City staff, public officials or any citizen may, however, question the consistency of a development proposal with the Comprehensive Plan. If a question of consistency is raised, the Site Plan Review Committee shall make a determination of consistency or inconsistency and support that determination with written findings.

(A)

In order to establish that the concurrency requirements of F.S. Ch. 163, Part II and Rule 9J-5.055, Florida Administrative Code, have been met, this section describes the requirements for maintaining the level of service adopted in the city's Comprehensive Plan. In general, state law requires that no development be approved for which services and facilities are not available concurrent with development. It is the intent of this section to describe those level of service requirements for each system.

(B)

This section provides the basis for determining level of service compliance required, for the purposes of reviewing and approving applications for development approval.

An application for a proposed development approval or a building permit shall indicate that one of the following requirements has been met:

(A)

Capacity exists at the site to serve the project or the first phase of the project. Determination of the existence of capacity shall be based upon estimated demand by the project, consideration of other approved but not built developments to be served by the same facility in the same time period and total capacity of the facility; or

(B)

Capacity will exist at the site at the time of occupancy of the project based upon plans for expansion of capacity. Capacity shall be ensured through one of the following:

(1)

The existence of valid contracts for construction; or

(2)

The existence of funds budgeted and appropriated for construction.

An application for a proposed development approval or a building permit shall indicate that one of the following requirements has been met:

(A)

Capacity exists in the existing wastewater collection system and at the city wastewater treatment facility to serve the project or the first phase of the project. Determination of the existence of capacity shall be based upon estimated demand by the proposed project, consideration of other approved but not built developments to be served and the actual capacity authorized by operating permit and the actual flow at the time of application; or

(B)

Capacity shall exist at the time of occupancy of each phase concurrent with the need. Calculation shall consider the projected flow requirements compared to actual flow, committed flow and the permitted capacity of the WWTP.

An application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning or site plan approval of a proposed development shall determine the impact of the project by the following procedures:

(A)

A traffic study shall be prepared by the developer or his or her designee that includes a projection of the gross PM Peak-Hour trips to be generated by the project and the distribution of the trips onto adjacent streets. Institute of Traffic Engineers trip generation rates or another approved source shall be used as the basis for trip generation calculations.

(B)

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required for a development that is anticipated to generate less than or equal to 100 gross PM Peak-Hour trips. A TIS will only require trip generation and turn lane analysis.

(C)

A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required for a development that is anticipated to generate more than 100 gross PM Peak-Hour trips. A TIA will require trip generation, turn lane analysis, and hot spot locations analysis. The traffic study analysis should be conducted following the procedures defined in Table 1: Traffic Study Requirements/Guidelines and Table 2: Traffic Study Assumptions.

(D)

All projects, whether requiring a TIS or a TIA, shall provide, at a minimum, a determination of need and length of turn lanes at project driveways consistent with the city's Land Development Code. Only projects required a TIA shall provide the following additional calculations at each project access point during the PM Peak-Hour:

(1)

A determination of level of service, including vehicle-to-capacity (V/C) ratios; and

(2)

A determination of need for traffic signals or other traffic control devices.

(E)

Traffic analysis shall be conducted consistent with Table 2: Traffic Study Assumptions and shall be prepared using generally accepted traffic analysis standards and guidelines.

(Ord. 998-08, passed 2-11-2008; Ord. No. 1474-24, § 3, 4-8-24)

(A)

Where the capacity exists to serve the proposed development as shown by comparing existing and proposed levels of service, the project shall be found in compliance with the transportation level of service.

(B)

Where there is an existing or anticipated deficiency, one of the following requirements shall be met:

(1)

Improvements to the affected roadways will increase the capacity of the roadway(s) such that the level of service requirement shall be met on or before occupancy of the development (or where applicable the first phase of the development). Capacity shall be ensured through one of the following:

(a)

Improvements are under construction at the time of application and are sufficient to maintain the adopted level of service. Where improvements are under construction, the level of service may be degraded during that period of time between occupancy of the development and completion of construction; the occurrence shall not constitute noncompliance;

(b)

A contract has been executed for improvements necessary to maintain the adopted level of service. The schedule of the contract shall be reasonably expected to provide the capacity at the time of occupancy. However, the level of service may be degraded during that period of time between occupancy and completion of construction; the occurrence shall not constitute noncompliance; or

(c)

Funds are budgeted and appropriated by the city, county or the FDOT for improvements necessary to maintain the adopted level of service. Funds shall be for actual construction and not for preliminary planning, design or engineering. The anticipated construction schedule shall be reasonably expected to provide the capacity at the time of occupancy or within two years following occupancy. The temporary degradation of level of service under this paragraph shall not constitute noncompliance.

(2)

Where no improvements are to be provided as described in division (B)(1) above, the following methods may be used to maintain adopted level of service:

(a)

The project owner or developer may provide the necessary improvements to maintain level of service. In such case the application shall include appropriate plans for roadways improvements, documentation that the improvements are designed to provide the capacity necessary to maintain the level of service and recordable instruments guaranteeing the construction. Documentation that improvements are designed to provide the necessary capacity shall be prepared and sealed by a professional traffic engineer, registered in the state. The provision of improvements shall be reasonably scheduled to provide the capacity at the time of occupancy; however, a temporary degradation of the level of service may be allowable and shall not constitute noncompliance. A temporary degradation may be allowable for a period not to exceed one year and may be allowable only if construction is taking place. Failure to meet this provision shall constitute violation of the development order and may result in cancellation of the development order and discontinuance of project construction and/or further occupancy.

(b)

The developer may contribute funds to the city necessary to provide roadway improvements needed to maintain or achieve the adopted level of service. Contribution of funds shall result in an appropriate budget amendment by the city in order to implement the needed roadway improvements. Approval of the development project shall be delayed until all appropriate government action has occurred necessary to meet one of the requirements above.

(3)

The proposed project may be altered such that projected level of service is no less than the adopted level of service.

(C)

The proposed development shall dedicate necessary right-of-way for roadway improvements on adjacent roadways and within the project site.

(D)

All roads and roadway improvements shall be constructed in compliance with standards and specifications of city regulations.

Pursuant to F.S. Ch. 163.3177(10)(h), public facilities and services needed to support development shall be available concurrent with the impacts of the development. The Florida Administrative Rule implementing this statute, Rule 9J-5.0055, mandates the adoption of concurrency management systems by a local government to ensure that the level of service standards adopted through the Comprehensive Plan are maintained. Concurrency is a finding that the public facilities and services necessary to support a proposed development are available or will be made available, concurrent with the impact of development. The provisions of this article 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 in order to meet the requirements of statutory concurrency requirements. The purpose of the proportionate fair-share option is to establish a method whereby the impacts of development on transportation facilities may 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 F.S. Ch. 163.3180(16).

(Ord. 973-07, passed 3-12-2007)

(A)

General requirements.

(1)

The Proportionate Fair-Share (PFS) Transportation Mitigation Program shall only apply to developments in the city that have been notified of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency.

(2)

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)

A determination by the city that the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable land development regulations; and

(b)

A determination by the city that the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the city capital improvement element (CIE) or county capital improvement program (CIP) or FDOT Work Program includes a transportation improvements) that, upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of the city transportation concurrency. The provisions of section 5.04.03.02(A)(3) may apply, at the discretion of the city, if a project or projects needed to satisfy concurrency are not presently contained within the city CIE, county CIP or FDOT Work Program.

(3)

(a)

The city may choose to allow an applicant to satisfy transportation concurrency through the Proportionate Fair-Share Program by contributing to an improvement that, upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of the city transportation concurrency, but is not contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the city CIE, county CIP or FDOT Work Program where one of the following apply:

1.

The city adopts, by resolution or otherwise, a commitment to add the improvement to the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the CIE no later than the next regularly scheduled update. To qualify for consideration under this section, the proposed improvement must be reviewed by the city's engineer or his or her designee and be determined to be financially feasible, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to be in compliance with the provisions of this code.

2.

The county adopts, by resolution or otherwise, a commitment to add the improvement to the five-year schedule of capital improvements in its CIP no later than the next regularly scheduled update. To qualify for consideration under this section, the proposed improvement must be reviewed by the County Engineer or his or her designee and be determined to be financially feasible and the city must determine that the improvement is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with the provisions of this code.

3.

The FDOT accepts a proportionate fair-share payment (as demonstrated by an executed agreement between the developer, the FDOT and the city) and the city determines the improvement is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with the provisions of this code.

4.

If the funds allocated for the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the city CIE are insufficient to fully fund construction of a transportation improvement required to meet concurrency. The city may still 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 the agreement is sufficient to pay for one or more improvements which will, in the opinion of the city, in consultation with the agency maintaining the facility, significantly benefit the impacted transportation system.

(b)

The improvement or improvements funded by the proportionate fair-share payment must be adopted into the five-year capital improvements schedule of the maintaining agency receiving the payment at their next annual capital improvements update.

(4)

Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer's fair-share obligation must meet design standards of the improved facility's maintaining agency.

(B)

Intergovernmental coordination.

(1)

Pursuant to policies in the intergovernmental coordination element of the city Comprehensive Plan, the city shall coordinate with affected jurisdictions, including FDOT, regarding mitigation to impacted facilities not under the jurisdiction of the city. An interlocal agreement may be established with other affected jurisdictions for this purpose.

(2)

In addition to the city and the applicant, proportionate fair-share agreements may include other maintaining agencies, including, but not limited to, Pasco County and FDOT. Proportionate fair-share payments for non-city facilities shall be made to the appropriate maintaining agency.

(C)

Application process.

(1)

Upon notification of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency, the applicant shall also be notified in writing of the opportunity to satisfy transportation concurrency through the Proportionate Fair-Share Program pursuant to the requirements of section 5.04.03.02(A).

(2)

Prior to submitting an application for a proportionate fair-share agreement, a pre-application meeting shall be held to discuss eligibility, application submittal requirements, potential mitigation options and related issues. If the impacted facility is maintained by another party (e.g., Pasco County or FDOT) they will be notified and invited to participate in the pre-application meeting.

(3)

Eligible applicants shall submit an application to the city that, at a minimum, includes the following:

(a)

Name, address and phone number of owner(s), developer and agent;

(b)

Copy of completed concurrency application and traffic impact analysis (TIA) (if a TIA was required);

(c)

Copy of the concurrency test results form; and

(d)

Description of requested proportionate fair-share mitigation method(s), including documentation of improvement cost estimates prepared, signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer.

(4)

The city's engineer or his or her designee shall review the application and certify that the application is sufficient and complete within 14 business days. If an application is determined to be insufficient, incomplete or inconsistent with the general requirements of the Proportionate Fair-Share Transportation Mitigation Program as indicated in section 5.04.03.02(A), then the applicant will be notified in writing of the reasons for the deficiencies within ten business days of submittal of the application. If the deficiencies are not remedied by the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the written notification, then the application will be deemed abandoned. The Director of Development or his or her designee, in his or her discretion, may grant an extension of time not to exceed 60 days to cure the deficiencies, provided that the applicant has shown good cause for the extension and has taken reasonable steps to effect a cure.

(5)

Proposed proportionate fair-share mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) (as determined by a city approved traffic impact analysis) requires the concurrence of the FDOT. The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement between the applicant and the FDOT for inclusion in the proportionate fair-share agreement.

(6)

When a proportionate fair-share 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 or the applicant with direction from the city and delivered to the appropriate maintaining parties (e.g., Pasco County or FDOT) for review, no later than 60 days from the date at which the applicant received the notification of a sufficient application and no fewer than 14 days prior to the Council meeting when the agreement will be considered.

(7)

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

(D)

Determining proportionate fair-share obligation.

(1)

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.

(2)

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.

(3)

The methodology used to calculate an applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation shall be as follows:

(a)

"The cumulative number of p.m. peak hour peak direction trips from the proposed development expected to reach roadways during p.m. peak hour from the complete build out of a stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour peak direction 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

(b)

Proportionate Fair-Share = [[(Development Tripsi) (SV Increasei)] × Costi]

Where:

Development Tripsi = Those trips from the stage or phase of development under review that are assigned to roadway segment "i" and have triggered a concurrency deficiency.

SV Increasei = Service volume increase provided by the eligible improvement to roadway segment per section 5.04.03.02(A).

Costi = 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.

(4)

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 city CIE, the County's CIP or the FDOT Work Program. Where the information is not available, improvement cost shall be determined using a generally accepted engineering method approved by the city's Consultant Engineer or his or her designee or the city's Consultant Engineer or his or her designee with concurrence from the maintaining agency.

(5)

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.

(6)

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 based on the 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 title insurance for 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 the FDOT for essential information about compliance with federal law and regulations.

(E)

Impact fee credit for proportionate fair-share mitigation.

(1)

Proportionate fair-share contributions to the city shall be applied as a credit against city 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.

(2)

City impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share contribution will be determined when the transportation impact fee obligation is calculated for the proposed development. City impact fees owed by the applicant will be reduced per the Proportionate Fair-Share Agreement. If the applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation is less than the development's anticipated city road impact fee for the specific stage or phase of development under review, then the applicant or its successor must pay the remaining city impact fee amount to the city pursuant to the requirements of the city impact fee ordinance.

(3)

Major projects not included within the city's impact fee ordinance or created under section 5.04.03.02(A)(3)(a)—(d) which can demonstrate a significant benefit to the impacted transportation system may be eligible at the city's discretion for impact fee credits.

(4)

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

(F)

Proportionate fair-share agreements.

(1)

Upon City Council approval of a proportionate fair-share agreement (PFS Agreement) the applicant shall receive a city certificate of concurrency approval. Should the applicant fail to receive final site plan approval within 12 months of the execution of the PFS Agreement, then the PFS Agreement shall be considered null and void and the applicant shall be required to reapply if he or she elects to pursue his or her development.

(2)

Payment of the proportionate fair-share contribution is due in full within 90 days of approval of the site plan or upon issuance of the building permit, whichever occurs first and shall be non-refundable. If the payment is submitted more than six months from the date of execution of the PFS Agreement, then the proportionate fair-share cost may, at the city's discretion, 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 section 5.04.03.02(D) and adjusted accordingly.

(3)

All developer off-site improvements authorized under the ordinance codified in this section must be completed prior to issuance of a building permit or as otherwise established in a binding agreement that is accompanied by a security instrument acceptable to the City Attorney that is sufficient to ensure the completion of all required improvements within three years from the issuance of a building permit.

(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 site plan approval or 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 written request 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 improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants on improvements to a shared transportation facility.

(8)

Projects not pursued during the pendency of a valid site plan and/or building permit shall be entitled to a credit of 85 percent of funds paid where the city has not constructed or entered into an agreement with a third party to construct the identified improvement which credit shall be applied to the proportionate share requirement of subsequent project(s); where the identified improvement has been constructed or committed to be constructed no credit shall be given except to the extent a new project would require the same improvements and then not to exceed 85 percent of the previous payment.

(G)

Appropriation of fair-share revenues.

(1)

Proportionate fair-share revenues received by the city shall be placed in the appropriate project account for funding of scheduled improvements in the city CIE or as otherwise established in the terms of the proportionate fair-share agreement. At the discretion of the city, 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.

(2)

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

(3)

Where an impacted regional facility has been designated as a regionally significant transportation facility in an adopted regional transportation plan, 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 Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). Such coordination shall be ratified by the city through an interlocal agreement that establishes a procedure for earmarking of the developer contributions for this purpose.

(4)

Where an applicant constructs a transportation facility that exceeds the applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation calculated under section 5.04.03.02(D), the city shall reimburse the applicant for the excess contribution using one 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)

The excess capacity may be reserved by the city and 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;

(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; or

(d)

Impact fee credits must be utilized within five years from the date of acceptance by the city and reserved express capacity must be utilized consistent with the time limits for capacity reservations.

(H)

Cross jurisdictional impacts. In the interest of intergovernmental coordination and to reflect the shared responsibilities for managing development and concurrency, the city may enter into a cross jurisdictional impact agreement with one or more adjacent local governments or the Florida Department of Transportation, to address cross jurisdictional impacts of development on regional transportation facilities. The agreement shall identify the methodology for addressing cross jurisdictional transportation impacts. The city shall notify the applicant if the applicant's transportation concurrency determination is subject to assessing cross jurisdictional impacts and the applicant shall be subject to the requirements of the applicable cross jurisdictional impact agreement.

(Ord. 973-07, passed 3-12-2007)

(A)

The following development orders and permits are exempt from this article and may commence development without applying for concurrency review:

(1)

Any addition to a residence;

(2)

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

(3)

Interior renovations with equal or less impact on public facilities;

(4)

Accessory structure to a residence;

(5)

Storage addition to a nonresidential use;

(6)

Replacement structure except for a nonconforming use in accordance with land development code provisions on nonconforming uses;

(7)

Temporary construction trailers;

(8)

Wells and septic tanks;

(9)

Driveway or resurfacing, parking lot paving and similar paving projects (i.e. loading docks);

(10)

Re-roofing of structures;

(11)

Demolitions;

(12)

Occupational license for a change in tenant space similar to the previous business tenant in that space with equal or less impact on public facilities;

(13)

Single-family and duplex residences on lots which are platted;

(14)

The following conditional use category items:

(a)

Public utility and service structures;

(b)

Attached or detached guest house to a residence;

(c)

Accessory parking for passenger vehicles when intended for a permitted adjacent commercial use;

(15)

Change of use(s) which is determined by the city to cause less impacts on public facilities than the existing use;

(16)

Accessory use to an existing use/structure which is determined by the city to cause no added impacts on public facilities;

(17)

Minor plats that do not increase density or intensity; and

(18)

Development that creates "de minimus" impact on public facilities.

(Ord. 973-07, passed 3-12-2007)

The adopted level of service standards for those public facilities for which concurrency is required shall be as established in the city's Comprehensive Plan, City Plan 2010, under the following cited policies:

Potable water: PUB 1-2-1

Sanitary sewer: PUB 2-4-1

Solid waste collection: PUB 3-2-3

Parks and recreation: REC 1-1-1

Drainage: PUB pg. 8

Roads: TRA 1-1-1

(Ord. 973-07, passed 3-12-2007)

All development proposed on or after the date of enactment of this code shall meet the storm water management requirements above. Compliance with these requirements constitute compliance with the drainage level of service requirements for new development or redevelopment.

The present composting facility has approximately 20 acres of unused area. This should be more than adequate to accommodate city needs for yard trash and other clean materials through the horizon year of 2010. With more emphasis on composting and use of wood chips for landscaping mulch, the volume of waste disposed of in the landfill can be reduced. Pasco County is constructing a mass burn incinerator with a landfill/ashfill in northwest Pasco County. All municipalities within Pasco County have entered into an interlocal agreement to be a party to the new solid waste disposal system. The design capacity of the system is 1,050 tons/day. All property owners are assessed by the county based on type and intensity of land use.

(A)

The estimated population of proposed residential development shall be used to determine any additional recreation facilities required to serve the project.

(B)

Currently available recreation facilities in the city (supply) shall be compared to those required by the current population and the population to be served by the projects under construction (demand). (This information shall be available from the city.)

(A)

If adequate facilities exists, based on the comparison in section 5.07.01 above (supply minus demand) to provide facilities needed for the proposed project, the level of service requirement is met.

(B)

If a deficiency in one or more recreation facility would result from the added development, one of the following requirements shall be met:

(1)

Funds are budgeted and appropriated for the acquisition of recreation lands and construction of facilities within the current budget year; or

(2)

Funds are budgeted and appropriated in the immediately succeeding fiscal year for the acquisition and development of recreation lands.

(C)

If the requirements of this section are not met, the application shall document methods to provide recreation lands needed to serve the project, including, but not limited to, one of the following:

(1)

Alteration of the project size and/or timetable; and/or

(2)

Provision of additional land to meet the recreation demand.