This docum ent does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives.
STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC
DATE: 4/11/2023
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: CS/HB 235 Alternative Mobility Funding Systems
SPONSOR(S): Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special Districts Subcommittee, Robinson, W.
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 350
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
1) Local Administration, Federal Affairs & Special
Districts Subcommittee
16 Y, 0 N, As CS Mwakyanjala Darden
2) Ways & Means Committee LaTorre Aldridge
3) Commerce Committee
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Each county and municipality is required to plan for future development and growth by adopting, implementing,
and amending as necessary a comprehensive plan. All elements of a plan or plan amendment must be based
on relevant, appropriate data and an analysis by the local government. Each comprehensive plan must include
a transportation element addressing traffic circulation, including the types, locations, and extent of existing and
proposed major thoroughfares and transportation routes, including bicycle and pedestrian ways.
Certain public facilities and services must be in place and available to serve new development no later than the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent by a local government. Local governments
may extend this concurrency requirement to additional public facilities such as transportation. Local
governments electing to repeal transportation concurrency are encouraged to adopt an alternative mobility
funding system. One method of funding local government transportation concurrency requirements is through
the adoption and imposition of impact fees to fund the infrastructure needed to expand local services to meet
the demands of population growth caused by new growth. Local governments may increase impact fees only
under limited circumstances, including upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
In 2013, the concept of a mobility fee-based funding system was added to the comprehensive planning
statutes as an encouraged alternative to transportation concurrency.
The bill revises provisions concerning impact fees and concurrency and provides additional guidance
concerning mobility fees. The bill provides definitions for “mobility fee” and “mobility plan” to be used within the
Community Planning Act. The bill provides that local governments adopting and collecting impact fees by
ordinance or resolution must use localized data available within the previous 12 months of adoption for the
local government’s calculation of impact fees. The bill revises the process for local governments to increase
impact fees based upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
The bill creates a new section of law establishing the method for adoption and implementation of a mobility
plan as an alternative to transportation concurrency as applied by local governments comprehensive plans.
The bill does not have a fiscal impact on state or local government.
The bill takes effect on July 1, 2023.
STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 2
DATE: 4/11/2023
FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Present Situation
Every local government, defined as any county and municipality,
1
is required to plan for future
development and growth by adopting, implementing, and amending as necessary a comprehensive
plan.
2
All elements of a plan or plan amendment must be based on relevant, appropriate data
3
and an
analysis by the local government that may include surveys, studies, aspirational goals, and other data
available at the time of adopting the plan or amendment.
4
The data supporting a plan or amendment
must be taken from professionally accepted sources
5
and must be based on permanent and seasonal
population estimates and projections.
6
Each comprehensive plan must include a transportation element, the purpose of which is to plan for a
multimodal transportation system emphasizing feasible public transportation, addressing mobility
issues pertinent to the size and character of the local government, and designed to support all other
elements of the comprehensive plan.
7
The transportation element must address traffic circulation,
including the types, locations, and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares and
transportation routes, including bicycle and pedestrian ways.
8
The plan of a local government with a
population exceeding 50,000 that is not within the planning area of a metropolitan planning
organization (MPO)
9
also must address mass transit, ports, and aviation
10
and related facilities.
11
The
transportation planning element for a local government with a population exceeding 50,000 located
within the area of a MPO specifically must address the following:
All alternative modes of travel, including public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle;
Aviation, rail, and seaport facilities, access to those facilities, and intermodal transportation;
Capability to evacuate coastal population prior to a natural disaster; and
Identification of land use densities, building intensities, and transportation management
programs to promote public transportation.
12
The transportation planning element for a municipality with a population exceeding 50,000, or a county
with a population exceeding 75,000, must provide for moving people by mass transit, including:
Providing efficient, safe, and convenient public transit, including accommodation for the
transportation disadvantaged;
Plans for port, aviation, and related facilities; and
Plans for circulation of recreational traffic, including bicycle and riding facilities and exercise
trails.
13
1
S. 163.3164(29), F.S. For the purpose of the act, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District may exercise the powers of a
municipality for the area under its jurisdiction. S. 163.3167(6), F.S. See also ch. 2023-5, Laws of Fla. (renaming the Reedy Creek
Improvement District to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District).
2
Ss. 163.3167(2), 163.3177(2), F.S.
3
“To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that
particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” S. 163.3177(1)(f), F.S.
4
S. 163.3177(1)(f), F.S.
5
S. 163.3177(1)(f)2., F.S. The statute does not further define “professionally accepted sources.”
6
S. 163.3177(1)(f)3., F.S. Population estimates may be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or may
be generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. Id.
7
S. 163.3177(6)(b), F.S.
8
S. 163.3177(6)(b)1., F.S.
9
S. An MPO must be designated as provided in 23 U.S.C. s. 450.310(a) for each urbanized area with a population of more than
50,000. S. 339.175(2), F.S. Florida MPOs are intended specifically to develop plans and programs in metropolitan areas for the
development and management of transportation systems and facilities, including pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation
facilities to function as an intermodal transportation system. S. 339.175(1), F.S.
10
All local governments have the option to include within the transportation element an airport master plan, incorporated into the plan
through the comprehensive plan amendment process. S. 163.3177(6)(b)4., F.S.
11
S. 163.3177(6)(b), F.S.
12
S. 163.3177(6)(b)2., F.S.
13
S. 163.3177(6)(b)3., F.S. STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 3
DATE: 4/11/2023
In addition to the general requirements for data supporting a comprehensive plan or amendment, the
transportation planning element must include one or more maps showing the general location of
existing and proposed transportation system features and data, analyses, and associated principles
pertaining to:
Existing transportation system levels of service and system needs and availability of
transportation facilities and services;
Growth trends and travel patterns, as well as interactions between land use and transportation;
Current and projected intermodal
14
deficiencies and needs;
Projected transportation system levels of service and system needs; and
How the local government will correct existing facility deficiencies, meet the needs of the
projected transportation system, and advance the transportation purposes of the plan.
15
Generally, local government transportation and mobility planning should address providing mobility
options, such as automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, or mass transit, that minimize environmental impacts,
expand transportation options, and increase connectivity between destinations.
16
Transportation Concurrency
Certain public facilities and services must be in place and available to serve new development no later
than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent by a local government.
17
Local governments may extend this concurrency requirement to additional public facilities such as
transportation.
18
Where concurrency is applied to transportation, the local government comprehensive
plan must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of
service, to guide its application.
19
The plan must show that the included levels of service may
reasonably be met.
20
Local governments utilizing transportation concurrency must use professionally
accepted studies to evaluate levels of service and techniques to measure such levels of service when
evaluating potential impacts of proposed developments.
21
While local governments implementing a
transportation concurrency system are encouraged to develop and use certain tools and guidelines,
such as addressing potential negative impacts on urban infill and redevelopment
22
and adopting long-
term multimodal strategies,
23
such local governments must follow specific concurrency requirements
including consulting with the Florida Department of Transportation if proposed amendments to the plan
affect the Strategic Intermodal System, exempting public transit facilities from concurrency
requirements, and allowing a developer to contribute a proportionate share to mitigate transportation
impacts for a specific development.
24
An applicant for a development-of-regional-impact development order, development agreement,
rezoning, or other land use development permit satisfies the requirements for transportation
concurrency if the applicant in good faith offers to enter into a binding agreement to pay for or construct
its proportionate share of transportation improvements required to mitigate the impact of the proposed
14
“Intermodal transportation” is not defined in the statute but generally means the transportation by or involving more than one form of
carrier in a single journey, particularly for moving cargo. See “intermodal,” available at https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/intermodal (last visited April 5, 2023); “intermodal transport,” available at
https://www.ups.com/us/en/supplychain/insights/knowledge/glossary-term/intermodal-transport.page (last visited April 5, 2023). Part of
the intent in creating the Florida Strategic Intermodal System is to address the increased demands placed on the entire statewide
transportation system by economic and population growth and projected increases in freight movement, international trade, and tourism
designing and operating a strategic intermodal system to meet the mobility needs of the state. See s. 339.61(2), F.S.
15
S. 163.3177(6)(b)1., F.S.
16
Dept. of Economic Opportunity, “Transportation Planning,” available at https://www.floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-
development/programs/community-planning-table-of-contents/transportation-planning (last visited April 5, 2023), herein DEO
Transportation Planning.
17
S. 163.1380(2), F.S. The only such services for which concurrency is mandatory are sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and
potable water supplies.
18
S. 163.3180(1), F.S.
19
Ss. 163.3180(1)(a), 163.3180(5)(a), F.S. See DEO Transportation Planning, supra n. 16.
20
S. 163.3180(1)(b), F.S.
21
S. 163.3180(5)(b)-(c), F.S.
22
S. 163.3180(5)(e), F.S.
23
S. 163.3180(f), F.S.
24
S. 163.3180(5)(h), F.S. See DEO Transportation Planning, supra n. 16. STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 4
DATE: 4/11/2023
development and the proffered proportionate share contribution or construction is sufficient to
accomplish one or more mobility improvements benefitting a regionally significant transportation
facility.
25
The plan for transportation concurrency must provide the basis on which landowners will be
assessed a proportionate share,
26
which must include a compliant formula for calculating the
proportionate share.
27
The proportionate share may not include additional costs to reduce or eliminate
existing transportation deficiencies.
28
Local governments electing to repeal transportation concurrency are encouraged to adopt an
alternative mobility funding system. Such an alternative system may not be used to restrict or deny
certain development approval applications provided the developer agrees to pay for the development’s
transportation impacts using the funding mechanism implemented by the local government. Local
government mobility fee systems must comply with all requirements for adopting and implementing
impact fees. An alternative funding system that is not mobility fee based may not impose on new
development any responsibility for funding existing transportation deficiencies.
29
Impact Fees
One method of funding local government transportation concurrency requirements is through the
adoption and imposition of impact fees on new development. Local governments impose impact fees to
fund infrastructure
30
needed to expand local services to meet the demands of population growth
caused by new growth.
31
Impact fees must meet the following minimum criteria when adopted:
The fee must be calculated using the most recent and localized data.
32
The local government adopting the impact fee must account for and report impact fee
collections and expenditures. If the fee is imposed for a specific infrastructure need, the local
government must account for those revenues and expenditures in a separate accounting fund.
33
Charges imposed for the collection of impact fees must be limited to the actual costs.
34
All local governments must give notice of a new or increased impact fee at least 90 days before
the new or increased fee takes effect, but need not wait 90 days before decreasing, suspending,
or eliminating an impact fee. Unless the result reduces total mitigation costs or impact fees on
an applicant, new or increased impact fees may not apply to current or pending applications
submitted before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased
impact fee.
35
A local government may not require payment of the impact fee before the date of issuing a
building permit for the property that is subject to the fee.
36
The impact fee must be reasonably connected to, or have a rational nexus with, the need for
additional capital facilities and the increased impact generated by the new residential or
commercial construction.
37
25
S. 163.3180(5)(h)1.c., F.S.
26
S. 163.3180(5)(h)1.d., F.S.
27
S. 163.3180(5(h)2.a.-d., F.S.
28
S. 163.3180(5)(h)2., F.S. For purposes of s. 163.3180(5), F.S., “transportation deficiency” means a facility or facilities on which the
level of service standard adopted in the comprehensive plan is exceeded by the number of existing, projected, or vested trips together
with additional trips originating from any source other than the development project under review, and trips forecast by established
traffic standards. S. 163.3180(5)(h)4., F.S. Local governments may resolve existing transportation deficiencies within an identified
transportation deficiency area by creating a transportation development authority with specific powers to implement a transportation
sufficiency plan funded through a formula of tax increment funding. Adopting a transportation sufficiency plan is deemed as meeting
transportation level of service standards, and proportionate fair-share mitigation is limited to ensure developments within the
transportation deficiency area are not responsible for additional costs to eliminate deficiencies. S. 163.3182, F.S.
29
S. 163.3180(5)(i), F.S.
30
“Infrastructure” means the fixed capital expenditure or outlay for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of public facilities
with a life expectancy of five or more years, together with specific other costs required to bring the public facility into service but
excluding the costs of repairs or maintenance. The term also includes specific equipment. S. 163.31801(3), F.S.
31
S. 163.31801(2), F.S. Water and sewer connection fees are not impact fees. S. 163.31801(12), F.S.
32
S. 163.31801(4)(a), F.S.
33
S. 163.31801(4)(b), F.S.
34
S. 163.31801(4)(c), F.S.
35
S. 163.31801(4)(d), F.S.
36
S. 163.31801(4)(e), F.S.
37
S. 163.31801(4)(f), F.S. STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 5
DATE: 4/11/2023
The impact fee must be reasonably connected to, or have a rational nexus with, the
expenditures of the revenues generated and the benefits accruing to the new residential or
commercial construction.
38
The local government must specifically earmark revenues generated by the impact fee to
acquire, construct, or improve capital facilities to benefit new users.
39
The local government may not use revenues generated by the impact fee to pay existing debt or
for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably connected to, or has a
rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential or commercial
construction.
40
The types of impact fees charged and the timing of their collection after issuing a building permit are
within the discretion of the local government or special district authorities choosing to impose the
fees.
41
In general, a building permit must be obtained before the construction, erection, modification,
repair, or demolition of any building.
42
A development permit pertains to any building permit, zoning
permit, subdivision approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official
action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land.
43
Local governments
providing an exception or waiver of impact fees for the development or construction of affordable
housing are not required to use any revenues to offset the impact of such development.
44
Local governments must credit against impact fee collections any contribution related to public facilities
or infrastructure on a dollar-for-dollar basis at fair market value for the general category or class of
public facilities or infrastructure for which the contribution was made. If no impact fee is collected for
that category of public facility or infrastructure for which the contribution is made, no credit may be
applied.
45
Credits for impact fees may be assigned or transferred at any time once established, from
one development or parcel to another within the same impact fee zone or district or within an adjoining
impact fee zone or district within the same local government jurisdiction.
46
Local governments may increase impact fees only under limited circumstances. A fee may be
increased no more than once every four years, may not be increased retroactively, the increase may
not exceed 50 percent of the current impact fee amount, and any increase must be consistent with a
statutorily-compliant plan for the imposition, collection, and use of the fees. An increase not exceeding
25 percent of the current fee amount must be implemented in two equal annual increments, while an
increase greater than 25 percent but not exceeding 50 percent of the current amount must be
implemented in four equal annual installments. However, a local government may increase a fee more
than once in four years or for more than 50 percent of a current impact fee amount if it has:
Prepared a demonstrated-need study within 12 months before adopting the increase showing
extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need for the increase;
Conducted at least two publicly noticed workshops on the extraordinary circumstances
justifying the increase; and
Approved the increase by at least a two-thirds vote of the governing body.
47
A local government that increases an impact fee must still provide the holder of any impact fee credit
the full benefit of the density and intensity prepaid by the credit balance.
48
38
S. 163.31801(4)(g), F.S.
39
S. 163.31801(4)(h), F.S.
40
S. 163.31801(4)(i), F.S.
41
See s. 163.31801(2), F.S.
42
S. 553.79, F.S.
43
S. 163.3164(16), F.S.
44
S. 163.31801(11), F.S.
45
S. 163.31801(5), F.S.
46
S. 163.31801(10), F.S. In an action challenging an impact fee or a failure to provide proper credits, the local government has the
burden of proof to establish the imposition of the fee or the credit complies with the statute, and the court may not defer to the decision
or expertise of the government. S. 163.31801(9), F.S.
47
S. 163.31801(6), F.S.
48
S. 163.31801(7), F.S. STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 6
DATE: 4/11/2023
With each annual financial report or audit filed
49
a local government must report specific information on
impact fees imposed, including the specific purpose of the fee, the impact fee schedule describing the
method of calculating the fee, the amount assessed for each purpose and for each type of dwelling, the
total amount of fees charged by type of dwelling, and each exception or waiver to the imposition of
impact fees provided for construction of affordable housing.
50
Additionally, the chief financial officer or
executive officer (if there is no chief financial officer) must submit with the annual financial report an
affidavit attesting that all impact fees were collected and expended by the local government, or on its
behalf, in full compliance with the spending period provisions in the local ordinance and that funds
expended from each impact fee account were used to acquire, construct, or improve those specific
infrastructure needs.
51
Mobility Plans and Fees
In the Community Renewal Act
52
of 2009 (Act), the Legislature found that the concept and application
of transportation concurrency was “complex, inequitable, lack(ed) uniformity among jurisdictions, (was)
too focused on roadways to the detriment of desired land use patterns and transportation alternatives,
and frequently prevent(ed) the attainment of important growth management goals.”
53
The Act required
completion and submission of a mobility fee methodology study
54
and stated the Legislature’s intent
that a mobility fee “should be designed to provide for mobility needs, ensure that development provides
mitigation for its impacts on the transportation system in approximate proportionality to those impacts,
fairly distribute the fee among the governmental entities responsible for maintaining the impacted
roadways, and promote compact, mixed-use, and energy-efficient development.”
55
In 2013, the concept
of a mobility fee-based funding system was added to the comprehensive planning statutes as an
encouraged alternative to transportation concurrency.
56
Alternative mobility funding systems using a mobility fee are encouraged to incorporate one or more of
the statutory tools and techniques, including:
Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal
solutions, including urban design, appropriate land use mixes, intensity and density;
Adoption of an area wide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function;
Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development;
Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe,
comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment with convenient interconnection to transit;
Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on non-vehicular modes of
transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate a level of
mobility; and
Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within urban areas,
multimodal transportation districts, and a balance of mixed-use development in certain areas or
districts, or for affordable or workforce housing.
57
Some local governments have adopted mobility plans and mobility fees.
58
Effect of Proposed Changes
49
See ss. 218.32, 218.39, F.S.
50
S. 163.31801(13), F.S.
51
S. 163.31801(8), F.S.
52
Ch. 2009-96, s. 1, Laws of Fla.
53
Ch. 2009-96, s. 13(1)(a), Laws of Fla.
54
Center for Urban Transportation Research, Evaluation of the Mobility Fee Concept Final Report, University of South Florida (Nov.
2009), available at https://cutr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Evaluation-of-the-Mobility-Fee-Concept-CUTR-Webcast-
04.21.11.pdf last visited April 5, 2023).
55
Ch. 2009-96, s. 13(1)(b), Laws of Fla.
56
Ch. 2013-78, s. 1, Laws of Fla.
57
S. 163.3180(5)(f), F.S.
58
See Hillsborough County Code of County Ordinances, ch. 40, art. III, div. 2, Mobility Fees; Pasco County Code of Ordinances, Land
Development Code, ch. 1300, s. 1302.2; City of Port St. Lucie Code of Ordinances, Title XV, ch. 159, s. 159.101, Port St. Lucie Mobility
Fee Ordinance. STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 7
DATE: 4/11/2023
The bill revises provisions concerning impact fees and concurrency while providing additional guidance
concerning mobility fees. The bill provides definitions for “mobility fee” and “mobility plan” to be used
within the Community Planning Act.
59
The bill requires agreements between local governments that implement a transportation concurrency
system and applicants for a development-of-regional-impact development order, development
agreement, rezoning, or other land use permit concerning the applicants offer to pay for or construct its
proportionate share of required improvements to that after an applicant makes its contribution or
constructs its proportionate share, the project shall be considered to have mitigated its transportation
impacts and must be allowed to proceed. The bill provides that local governments may not prevent a
single applicant from proceeding after the applicant has satisfied its proportionate-share contribution.
Impact Fees
The bill provides that local governments adopting and collecting impact fees must use localized data
available within the previous 12 months of adoption for the local government’s calculation of impact
fees. The bill provides that a local government must credit against the collection of the impact any
contribution identified in the development order or any form of exaction, including monetary
contributions.
The bill revises the ability of local governments to increase impact fees based upon a showing of
extraordinary circumstances. The bill replaces the term with a requirement that local governments
demonstrate “extraordinary impacts,” defined term as effects of development that will require mitigation
by the affected local government, school district, or special district in the next four years that will
exceed the current impact fee amount, together with any increase that is permissible under the four-
year phase-in provisions.
The bill requires the demonstrated-need study to show that the projected population growth and in
demand for the specific services funded by the impact fee will exceed the projected population growth
and demand for those specific services statewide. The bill maintains a requirement that two publicly
noticed workshops to be dedicated solely to the extraordinary impacts justifying the increase to impact
fees and adds an additional two properly noticed public meetings solely dedicated to the extraordinary
impacts. The bill provides that in any administrative or judicial proceeding challenging an impact fee
increase by a local government due to extraordinary impacts, the local government shall have the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the local government justifiably relied upon the
demonstrated need study in the process of increasing impact fees.
Mobility Plans
The bill creates a new section of law establishing the method for adoption and implementation of a
mobility plan as an alternative to transportation concurrency as applied by local governments
comprehensive plans. Mobility plans adopted:
May include existing and emerging transportation technologies that reduce dependence on
motor vehicle travel capacity.
May not be based solely on adding motor vehicle capacity.
Must reflect modes of travel and emerging transportation technologies reducing reliance on
motor vehicle capacity established in the local government’s comprehensive plan.
Must identify multimodal projects consisting of improvements, services, and programs which
increase capacity needed to meet future travel demands.
The bill provides that mobility fees, fee updates, and fee increases must be based on the mobility plan,
may not rely solely on motor vehicle capacity, and must be used exclusively to implement the mobility
plan. The bill requires mobility fees to be updated at least once within five years after the date the fee is
adopted or updated. The bill provides that an annual inflation adjustment or any phased-in fee is not
considered an update. Mobility fees that are not updated are void.
59
The Community Planning Act is part II of ch. 163, F.S. STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 8
DATE: 4/11/2023
The bill provides that local governments adopting a mobility plan and mobility fee system for
transportation mitigation must:
Be based on an adopted mobility plan, if adopted after September 1, 2023.
Meet the requirements of impact fee;
Be calculated using all of the following criteria:
o Projected increases in population, employment, and motor vehicle travel demand and
per person travel demand.
o Areawide road levels of service or quality of service standards and multimodal quality of
service standards for modes of travel included in the mobility plan.
o Multimodal projects identified in the mobility plan which are attributable to, and meet the
travel demands of, new development and redevelopment and which include capacities
based on service standards and projected costs.
o An evaluation of current and future travel conditions to ensure that new development
and redevelopment are not charged for backlog and associated capacity deficiencies.
o An evaluation of the projected increases in per person travel demand and system
capacity to calculate the fair share of multimodal capacity and the costs of multimodal
projects which are assignable and attributable to new development and redevelopment.
o Per person travel demand corresponding to the transportation impact assigned to uses
included in the mobility fee schedule based on trip generation, new trips, per person
travel demand, per person trip lengths, excluded travel on limited access facilities, and
adjustments for origin and destination of travel.
o The mobility fee may not be based on recurring transportation costs.
o The mobility fee must fully mitigate the subject development or redevelopment's full
transportation impacts.
The bill provides that the per person travel demand data that is included in the mobility plan must be
focused on local travel data. Local governments may recognize reductions in per person travel demand
for affordable housing and economic development projects. The bill specifies that any calculation of per
person travel demand must ensure that a new development or redevelopment is not assessed twice for
the same transportation impact.
The bill provides that mobility fees that are collected for specific transportation mitigation improvements
must be expended or committed for an identified project within 6 years after the date of collection or
must be returned to the applicant who paid the fee.
The bill provides that local governments that issue building permits for development within the local
government’s jurisdiction must develop a mobility fee based on the adopted mobility plan. Local
governments must develop mobility fees based on the adopted mobility plan in order to ensure that the
transportation impacts of the new development or redevelopment project are fully mitigated. Other local
governments are prohibited from charging a new development or redevelopment for the same travel
demand, capacity, or improvements that have already been assessed by the governmental entity that
issued the building permit.
The bill encourages local governments to coordinate with other affected local governments to identify
multimodal projects, capacity improvements, full costs, and timing of improvements in mobility plans to
address intra-jurisdictional and extra-jurisdictional impacts. Coordination is encouraged to identify
measurable factors addressing:
The share of per person travel demand which each local government should assess.
The proportion of costs of multimodal projects to be included in the mobility fee calculations.
Which entity will construct the multimodal projects.
If necessary, whether the projected future ownership of the multimodal project and underlying
facility should be transferred from the affected local government to the local government
adopting the mobility fee.
The bill provides that mobility fees, impact fees, and other transportation mitigation exaction other than
the one assessed by the local government issuing the building permits must include the same benefit STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 9
DATE: 4/11/2023
reductions in per person travel demand for affordable housing, economic development, urban areas,
and mixed-use development. The bill places the burden of proof on local governments adopting a
mobility fee system or assessing a transportation exaction for intra-jurisdictional and extra-jurisdictional
impacts to prove that the local government met the requirements provided by the bill. The burden of
proof must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence and courts may not use a deferential
standard for the benefit of the local government.
The bill provides that mobility fee credits must comply with the impact fee statute as to concurrency in
any mode that creates equivalent capacity which is designated in a local government capital
improvements list. The bill provides that holders of transportation or road impact fee credits granted
under s. 163.3180 or s. 380.06, F.S., along with other provisions, which existed before the adoption of
the mobility fee-based funding system, is entitled to the full benefit of the intensity and density prepaid
by the credit balance as of the date it was first established.
The bill provides that payment by a development of the authorizing local government’s adopted mobility
fee is to deemed to fully mitigate the development’s full transportation impacts.
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Amends s. 163.3164, F.S., relating to Community Planning Act definitions.
Section 2: Amends s. 163.3180, F.S., relating to concurrency.
Section 3: Amends s. 163.31801. F.S., relating to impact fees.
Section 4: Creates s. 163.31803, F.S., relating to mobility plans.
Section 5: Amends s. 212.055, F.S., relating to discretionary sales surtaxes.
Section 6: Provides an effective date of July 1, 2023.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
None.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS: STORAGE NAME: h0235b.WMC PAGE: 10
DATE: 4/11/2023
None.
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
1. Applicability of Municipality/County Mandates Provision:
Not applicable. This bill does not appear to require counties or municipalities to spend funds or take
action requiring the expenditures of funds; reduce the authority that counties or municipalities have
to raise revenues in the aggregate; or reduce the percentage of state tax shared with counties or
municipalities.
2. Other:
None.
B. RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY:
The bill neither authorizes nor requires administrative rulemaking by executive branch agencies.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES
On March 20, 2023, the Local Administration, Federal Affairs, & Special Districts Subcommittee adopted
one amendment and reported the bill favorably as a committee substitute. The amendment revises the
ability of local governments to increase impact fees based upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances
by:
Replacing the term with “extraordinary impacts,” defined as effects of development that will require
mitigation by the affected local government, school district, or special district in the next four year
that will exceed the total of the current impact fee amount, together with any increase that is
permissible under the four-year phase-in provisions.
Requires the demonstrated needs study to show that the projected population growth and in
demand for the specific services funded by the impact fee will exceed the projected rates of
population growth and demand for those specific services statewide.
Revises the publicly noticed workshops requirement, necessitating the workshops must be solely
dedicated to the extraordinary impacts, and requires two properly noticed public meetings also
solely dedicated to the extraordinary impacts as a requirement.
Provides that in any administrative or judicial proceeding challenging an impact fee increase by a
local government due to extraordinary impacts, the local government shall have the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence that the local government justifiably relied upon the
demonstrated-need study in the process of increasing impact fees.
This analysis is drafted to the committee substitute adopted by the Local Administration, Federal Affairs, &
Special Districts Subcommittee.