The Concurrency Process & Concurrency Service Areas

School Board WorkshopApril 27, 2010

• Concurrency – the process by which a Local Government assures that necessary public facilities and services are provided consistent with the adopted Level of Service standards when the impacts of development occur, or at such other time as allowed by statute.

• FISH – the Florida Inventory of School Houses, an official inventory report (1013.31 F.S.) of all District owned facilities.

• COFTE – Capital Outlay Full Time Equivalent is a measure of student enrollment developed by the FLDOE

2

Concurrency Terms Review

Concurrency Terms Review

• Level of Service (LOS) = COFTE ÷ permanent FISH capacity

• Level of Service Standard (LOSS) = 110% of permanent FISH capacity at all grade levels

• School capacity - permanent FISH capacity; includes modulars, but not portables

• Available capacity = 110% permanent FISH capacity (level of service standard) – (COFTE + reserved capacity) + (capacity planned for construction within the first 3 years of the CIP)

3

Concurrency has been implemented at the Local Governments

Concurrency Process - Step 1

The available capacity is established districtwide annually based on:

– the adopted level of service standard

– the permanent FISH capacity

– COFTE forecasts

– the number of seats reserved for proposed development at final plat

– and the projects in the first three years of the Capital Budget.

This data is reflected in the

Concurrency Management Summary.

Osceola County

July 29, 2009

City of Kissimmee September 1, 2009

City of St. Cloud July 31, 2009

4

5

(1)School Type

f 1

(2)2009-10 FISH

Capacity

f 2

(3)2009-10 COFTE

f 3

(4)2009-10 LOS

f 2 / f 1

f 4

(5)Proposed Capacity (Planning)

f 5

(6)Encumbered Capacity

f 6

Available Capacity at

100% f 1 - (f 2 + f 5 )

f 7

(8) Capacity at 110%

f 1 x 110%

f 8

(9) 3 Years of Programmed

Capacity f 1c - f 1

f 9

(10)Available

Capacity at 110% (f 7 - (f 2 +f 4 +f 5 ) + f 8 )

ES N, Thacker, & Highlands

Elementary 24,027 19,938 83% 671 70 4,020 26,430 1,777 8,199Parkway

Middle 11,817 10,361 88% 286 29 1,427 12,998 90 2,699Osceola & St. Cloud

High 14,888 14,613 98% 414 44 231 16,377 1,893 3,613

TOTALS 50,732 44,912 1,371 143 5,678 55,805 3,760 14,511NOTES:

(10)Available Capacity at 110% LOSS -Available student stations at factored capacity at the Level Of Service Standard for utilization of public schools set by the 2008 Interlocal Agreement

*Due to formulas and computer rounding, capacity may be one seat different in the calculations.

2009-10 School District of Osceola County Concurrency Management Summary

(1)School Type-Elementary houses grades PK-5; Middle houses grades 6-8; High houses grades 9-12; these include any special and alternative programs with permanent FISH student stations (2)FISH -Capacity based on factored permanent student stations from the FDOE Florida Inventory of SchoolHouses dated September 3, 2009 & CIP (excludes portables ) (3)COFTE - (Capital Outlay Full-Time Equivalent) FDOE projections for student enrollment dated June 11, 2009 (4)LOS - (Level of Service) utilization based on COFTE/FISH Capacity(5) Proposed Capacity (Planning) - an accounting of proposed development impacts for planning purposes only(6)Encumbered Capacity - available capacity reserved during Final Development Order approval process through Capacity Determination Application and applications prior to implementation of school concurrency(8) Capacity at 110% - Total available student stations at factored design capacity for each grade type throughout the District(9) 3 Years of Programmed Capacity - Capacity planned for construction in the 1st 3 years of the 2009-10 5 Year Work Plan

Functional Capacity vs. FISH Capacity

6

Functional Capacity vs. FISH Capacity

7

Functional Capacity vs. FISH Capacity

8

Functional Capacity vs. FISH Capacity

9

2009-10 SY ALL

SCHOOLS

Available FISH Capacity

3855

2010-11 SY ALL

SCHOOLS

Available FISH Capacity

6123

Available Functional Capacity

93 Available Functional Capacity

2093

All district facilities are not included in this analysis, some alternative programs and Bellalago Charter are not included.

Concurrency Process cont’d

Capacity ReviewApplicants proposing residential development are required by the local governments to receive a Capacity Review from the District prior to approval of preliminary development approvals. This is a planning tool for the District as well as the applicant.

One-Stop Permitting All jurisdictions have incorporated school concurrency into their development applications to facilitate the approval process for the applicant.

Development Applications

10

Concurrency Process - Step 2

• The County has included the District in the review process by giving staff access to the building permit database to submit comments in the preliminary stages of development review.

• District staff reviews all

residential development

applications for school

capacity as they are submitted.

11

• District staff responds to all applications electronically within the assigned due dates.

• A Statement/Determination is submitted to the jurisdiction and/or the applicant outlining the impacts to the schools affected, and the capacity available for the applicant’s project.

• When capacity is not available,

mitigation options are outlined

in the Statement/Determination.12

Concurrency Process - Step 3

13

Concurrency Process

14

15

Development Review Applications – Local Governments

Required Process for School Concurrency ______________ J _____________

Concurrency Process – Steps 4

• Monitoring and Tracking - All applications are tracked in a database for planning and reporting purposes.

• When an application is at the final plat phase, capacity is encumbered (reserved) for the development and the certificates of occupancy (COs) are tracked annually.

• Applicants also have the option of reserving capacity at an earlier phase through a developer’s agreement.

16

Concurrency Management

17

Development Identification

Project # Parcel ID# Acreage Development Name

CPA09-0002 01-25-30-0000-0003-0000 110 Boggy Creek Enclave

Proposed Units

Attendance Boundary Zone

Students Generated

Application Status

SF MF MH 529 0 0

ES MS HS NCES NCMS HRHS

ES MS HS134 61 81

TRC/DRC PC/PB/PAB CC/BCC STATUS Date Date Date 07/08/09 08/06/09 06/15/09 Pending

Phasing/Proposed Capacity (Planning) Proposed CSA #

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS ES MS HS

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 61 81

#4 – Boggy Creek

Concurrency Process– cont’d

• All non-residential development applications are reviewed for school site impacts that may adversely affect existing and/or future schools and the students attending them.

• District staff members attend development review staff meetings to answer applicant

or staff questions when applicable.

• District staff is also represented on

each of the Local Governments’ Planning Boards.18

Concurrency Process – cont’d

• The Interlocal Agreement (ILA) obliges the TWG to coordinate the monitoring, study, review and submitting of recommendations relative to the School Concurrency System.

• The Technical Working Group (TWG) meets weekly to discuss any and all planning issues related to school data, concurrency and new facilities.

19

20

Concurrency Service Areas - CSAs

• The ILA states that all Parties have agreed to a districtwide CSA until May 1, 2013. Although -

• For the first 3 years of the implementation of concurrency, District staff must conduct quarterly tests of multiple CSAs.

After which the Parties agree to review those results and then consider the feasibility of multiple CSAs and whether to recommend adoption.

• This testing will continue

annually until the Parties

agree to adopt multiple CSAs,

but not later than May 1, 2013.

Concurrency Service Areas - CSAs

• When multiple concurrency service

areas are established, the School

Board is required by statute to

maximize the capacity of schools.

The ILA outlines the acceptable and unacceptable methods of implementing school concurrency.

• Any Party may propose a change to the CSA boundary and if agreed to, the ILA is amended.

21

22

Criteria and considerations for proposed CSA boundaries are as follows:

• Natural geographic and physical boundaries

• Census tracts and Traffic Analysis

• Large developments or communities

• Development patterns

• Attendance boundaries and feeder patterns

• Adjacency to other CSAs with or without capacity

• Mixed Use Districts as defined by the Osceola County Comprehensive Plan

CSA Delineation Review

23

24

25

The ILA lists 3 methods that are acceptable:– Capacity at new

schools and permanent additions

– Busing to schools with capacity (<50 min. each way)

– Changing attendance boundaries

for schools with capacity

And 13 methods that are not acceptable for maximization of school capacity:

–Block schedule changes to courses taken & credits earned

–Busing to schools with capacity (>50 min. each way)

–Changing school attendance boundaries inconsistent with equal education opportunities–Bussing past neighborhood school–Double sessions–Dual enrollment at community college–Dual enrollment at Fl Virtual School–Floating teachers–Graduation upon passing Grade 10 FCAT and completion of required courses–Portables (except for short-term use)–Program reduction or elimination–Repealing local policies that exceed state required 24 credits for HS graduation–Year-round school calendar

Maximization of School Capacity