5/22/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 2 2 1990 BOOK 0 INTERJURISDICTIONAL CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT PROCESS Community Development Director Keating made the staff presentation as follows: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP RuVIk Community Development Director DATE: May 16, 1990 SUBJECT: INTERJURISDICTIONAL CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT PROCESS It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 22, 1990. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Several weeks ago, the managers of the Town of Indian River Shores and the City of Vero Beach approached the county staff regarding the issue of concurrency management. Both the town and the city have concerns regarding traffic circulation levels of service, concurrency, and possible building moratoriums. The principal concerns of the city and town involve the technical issues of determining roadway capacity, projecting project traffic, and reviewing traffic impact analyses submitted by applicants. Recognizing the need for technical traffic engineering expertise to address these issues, the. town and city requested county assistance. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The county staff indicated to the city and town that a coordinated concurrency management system was possible. Including the town, the city, and other municipalities (if the other jurisdictions opt to participate), the system would be managed by the county staff. This system would involve a computer link from each, jurisdiction to the community development department's local area network which will support the computerized concurrency management system being developed by the consulting firm of Tindale -Oliver and Associates. It is anticipated that fees charged to applicants for concurrency determination requests will fund operation of the system. However, there are some up -front costs associated with developing an inter - jurisdictional concurrency management system, and the city and town have agreed to pay those costs. The referenced costs would result from expanding the scope of services of the county's consultant. As proposed, the scope would be modified by adding two tasks having a combined cost of $8,160. These tasks involve developing the traffic impact analysis section of the county's land development regulations and developing a countywide transportation links database and updating process. Having the consultant develop the traffic impact analysis regulations would provide one set of criteria to be used for traffic concurrency determinations for the county, city and town. It would also provide regulations consistent with the computerized concurrency management system being prepared by the consultant. Finally, having the consultant prepare the traffic impact analysis 26