1. Clay County School Concurrency Program January 18, 2007

2. Concurrency Components Enrollment projections Capacity measure Financial feasibility Level of service standard (LOS) Concurrency Service Areas (CSA) Proportionate share mitigation

3. Required Documents By May 1, 2008: All parties adopt : –Updated Interlocal Agreement School Board adoption of : –Financially feasible Five-Year Capital Plan Local government adoption of : –Public School Facilities Element (PSFE) –Updated Capital Improvement Element (CIE) –Updated Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE)

4. School District Five-Year Capital Plan Must be a financially feasible plan demonstrating: –Funding availability –Student enrollment projections anticipated –Capacity needs / new schools planned –School modernization / replacements included –School utilization maximized –General long term conditions anticipated –Adopted level of service met in each Concurrency Service Area (CSA)

5. Availability Standard Capacity projects identified in the first three years of the School District’s capital plan can be relied upon by a developer as assured The School District may not remove a project from the first three years of its CIP which would cause the adopted level of service in a CSA to be exceeded A local government may not deny a residential application on the basis of school concurrency if adequate school facilities will be in place or under actual construction within 3 years of the anticipated project approval date.163.3180.13(e) F.S.

6. Enrollment Projections Developed using 6 year actual enrollment history (growth rate) Adjusted to reflect current trends –Growth/Decline Compared to Florida Department of Education Capital Outlay Full-Time Equivalency (COFTE) projections Re-evaluated if major discrepancy identified

7. Capacity Measures FISH Capacity Permanent Capacity Design Capacity (Facility List) Core Capacity Blends based on functional issues of school –Design v. FISH –Core v. FISH

8. Recommended Capacity The lesser of FISH or Cafeteria Core Capacity. Maximum school enrollment by school level shall be established by School Board Policy.

9. How will the Capacity Measure be Applied? The lesser of FISH or Cafeteria Core Capacity would be used for all facilities. A School Board Policy establishing a maximum school is recommended. The maximum school enrollment size would be used for all new schools until the FISH capacity is established for the school. All existing schools which exceed the maximum school enrollment would be evaluated for options to reduce enrollment.

10. Level of Service Standard Sets uniform standards for LOS district-wide for each school type Based on financially feasible capital plan Measured within each CSA May be tiered to address backlogged demand and meet future LOS May identify the use of a long-term concurrency management plan for unique circumstances Adopted in the ILA, PSFE, and CIE

11. Recommended LOS To accurately reflect the actual use of the school, the lesser of FISH or Cafeteria Core is recommended Each school level will have its own level of service (recommended) –Elementary – 110% –Jr. High – 100% –High – 110% –Combination – 100% A long term concurrency management plan will be used for schools with unique capacity issues until they reach the adopted level of service

12. Long Term Concurrency Management Plan LONG TERM CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN SCHOOL YEAR 2007-2015 Facility Name 2007- 08 2008- 09 2009- 10 2010- 11 2011- 12 2012- 13 2013- 14 2014- 15 2015- 16 Doctor's Inlet Elementary 118%120%122%125%127%130%132%110% Keystone Heights Elementary 110% 112%114%116%118%110% Lake Asbury Elementary 137%144%110% Middleburg Elementary 110% 113%116%120%123%110% Ridgeview Elementary110%113%111%110% Thunderbolt Elementary 110% 113%118%122%110% Middleburg High125%130%136%115% 118%120%110% Ridgeview High113%117%115% 117%118%110% Oakleaf Jr. High (K-8)106%100%

13. Concurrency Service Areas (CSA) Geographic area to measure LOS Less than district-wide using school attendance boundaries (recommended) Direct impact measured Maximized utilization required among CSAs Adjacent CSA review

14. Proposed Elementary CSAs

15. Adjacent Concurrency Service Areas Required when school concurrency is applied less than district-wide New residential causes utilization to exceed LOS in CSA Adjacent CSA –Reviewed for available capacity –Development impacts shifted to achieve LOS

16. Recommendation Summary Capacity –Use the lesser of Cafeteria Core or FISH Core capacity provides the logical maximum limit to a school’s ability to accommodate students FISH is the recognized measure of a school’s capacity in the State of Florida Level of Service –Establish goal of 110% enrollment to capacity at elementary –Establish a goal of 100% enrollment to capacity at Jr. High and combination schools –Establish a goal of 110% enrollment to capacity at High Schools –Isolate school with “anomalies” using a long-term concurrency management system Concurrency Service Areas –Adopt school attendance boundaries as CSAs School Board Policies –Adopt a maximum – not to exceed - school capacity size –Adopt relocatable facilities replacement plan

17. Proposed School Concurrency Implementation Schedule Reach Consensus on Draft Documents Amend and adopt Interlocal Agreement Adopt and transmit Public School Facilities Element Adopt and transmit Capital Improvements Element Adopt and transmit Intergovernmental Coordination Element School Concurrency Adoption Deadline: May 1, 2008

18. Additional Information Jeanne Mills, JD, AICP Jeanne Mills and Associates, LC jeannemills@adelphia.net (561)213-6931 David DeYoung, AICP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. david.deyoung@kimley-horn.com (561)840-0291

19. Clay County School Concurrency Program January 18, 2007