CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH

MEMORANDUM

DATE:             January 24, 2008

TO:                  D. Mike Good, City Manager

FROM:            Richard D. Cannone, Director Development Services

SUBJECT:     An Ordinance of the City of Hallandale Beach, Florida, Creating a “Public School Concurrency” Section

PURPOSE:

To establish a new section of the Land Development Code, Chapter 32, Article VI, Section 32-888, to be titled, “Public School Concurrency” that outlines the review procedures for implementing the school concurrency requirements identified in the Public School Facilities Element and the Amended Interlocal Agreement. 

BACKGROUND:

The proposed Ordinance was created in response to the mandatory requirements outlined by Senate Bill 360 to maintain public school concurrency through the implementation of a uniform review process between the Broward County School Board and Broward Municipalities. Pursuant to the requirements of SB 360, the following components of public school concurrency have been completed:

• On December 4, 2007, the City Commission approved an Ordinance on First Reading amending the Comprehensive Plan to add a Public School Facilities Element and take other appropriate actions regarding school concurrency. A transmittal package including the Public School Facilities Element was sent to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a review. DCA determined that a formal review for consistency was necessary and DCA comments will be returned no later than February 16, 2008.  Staff will address the comments and present the Public School Facilities Element to the City Commission for Second Reading.

• On January 22, 2008 the City Commission approved the Amended Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the Broward County School Board. The amended Interlocal Agreement states that the school board and each municipality must adopt provisions to their Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that provide procedures for the review of plats and site plans.

• On January 23, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the proposed Ordinance to create a new section in the Zoning and Land Development Code that outlines the development review process for proposed residential developments in accordance with the policies adopted in the Public School Facilities Element and the amended Interlocal Agreement.

ANALYSIS:

All of the requirements for public school concurrency require consistency between the school board and local governments. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the Ordinance that Broward County has adopted. The proposed Ordinance outlines procedures for developers, the School Board, and the City as it relates to residential development in concurrency service areas. The proposed ordinance addresses the following issues:

· Concurrency Service Areas – Individual school attendance zones for each public elementary, middle, and high school (required

· Level of Service – 110% of permanent school capacity

· Permits which will be subject to School Concurrency- plats and site plans

· Exempt Applications – application that generate less than one (1) student and age restricted communities

· Vested Applications – applications within plats approved after February 2, 1979, (the date school impact fees were adopted) and applications within previously approved comprehensive plan amendments and rezonings subject to mitigation agreements or restrictive covenants

· Review Time Frames – 45 days for School Board review of applications, 30 days for applicant to propose proportionate share mitigation to the School Board, and 30 days for applicants to appeal School Board determinations.

In approved, the Ordinance will be brought back when ready to the City Commission for Second and Final Reading along with the Public School Facilities Element.

RECOMMENDATION:

The City Commission approve the proposed Ordinance on First Reading to create a new section in the City’s Zoning and Land Development Code to outline the development review procedures for public school concurrency. 

Prepared by:

____________________________________________

Sarah Suarez, Associate Planner

Reviewed:

_______________________________                                                          __________

D. Mike Good, City Manager                                                                             Date

_____Approved                _____Disapproved                _____Hold for Discussion

 Comments: