INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE LAW:FLORIDA’S PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

1. INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE LAW:FLORIDA’S PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE JULIAN CONRAD JUERGENSMEYER PROFESSOR AND BEN F. JOHNSON PROFESSOR OF LAW GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY

2. IS FLORIDA OVER?

6. GROWTH MANAGEMENT = INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABILITY • Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y, 2d 359 (1972).

7. SMART GROWTH =INFRASTRUCTURE + DESIGN • APA “ Smart growth means using comprehensive planning to guide, design, develop, revitalize and build communities for all that have a unique sense of community and place, preserve and enhance valuable natural and cultural resources, equitable distribute the costs and benefits of development, expand the range of transportation, employment and housing choices in a fiscally responsible manner…

8. MAGNA CHARTA

9. MAGNA CHARTA CONTINUED

10. FLORIDA CASE LAW • Hollywood Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606 (Fla App. 1983) • St. Johns County v. Northeast Fla. Builders Assn 583 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1991).

11. EVOLUTION OF IMPACT FEES • PREDICTION: USE OF OTHER TERMINOLOGY FOR IMPACT FEES TO ESCAPE VARIOUS JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTIONS • EXTEND IMPACT FEES TO SOCIAL AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE • GREATER COMBINATION OF DEVELOPER FUNDING DEVICES

12. DESTIN WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAM • 1. REQUIRE ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION • 2. OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION • 3. CONVERT MARKET TO WORKFORCE • 4. “TRANSFER” OBLIGATION TO NONPROFIT • 5. PAY FEE-IN-LIEU

13. Impact Fee Enabling Acts And Florida • Over the years many bills introduced but only statutory references until 2006 • 2006 Fla. Stat. 163. 31801 • 2007 SB 576 – did NOT pass

14. My Proposal • I recant – lets adopt an act covering IFs • BUT not just IFs • Time has come for a unified and comprehensive statutory approach to Developer provided/funded infrastructure requirements

15. Proposal Cont. • Including: • Dedication and Construction Requirements • Mitigation Requirements • Required Contributions • Concurrency Requirements • Consistency Standards

16. Federal Role • A Resurrected/Improved National Infrastructure Funding Initiative • Remember Hart Proposal (introduced 4/3/1985) • S.849 Title: A bill to establish a National Infrastructure Fund to provide funds for interest-free loans to State and local governments for construction and improvement of highways, bridges, water supply and distribution systems, mass transportation facilities and equipment, and wastewater treatment facilities, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hart, Gary W. [CO]      

17. CURRENTLY BEFORE CONGRESS • REBUILDING AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE ACT, HR 3400 • NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007, S775, HR 3538

18. State Role • Formulation and a Enforcement of New Comprehensive Code on a Regional as well as Local Basis • State Infrastructure Funding Program Similar to Federal: To Supplement/Match Federal • To Pay for Existing Deficit and Protect New Development from Disproportionate Share of the Bill

19. Remember Dual Rational Nexus Test • PRONG 1 • IMPACT FEES MAY BE NO MORE THAN THE GOVERNMENT’S INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS WHICH ARE REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT • aka PROPORTIONATE SHARE

20. DRN Test • Prong II • The new development required to pay impact fees must benefit from the expenditure of those fees

21. Difficult Issues Include • Credits • Operation and Maintenance • Benefit Districts/Service Areas • Regional Needs and Coordination

22. Florida: Sunrise or Sunset?