Laserfiche WebLink
v. Construction of a school in advance of the time set forth in the School District <br />Five -Year Facilities Work Program: or <br />vi. Construction of a charter school designed in accordance with School District <br />standards and State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF), providing <br />permanent School Capacity to the District's inventory of student stations. Use <br />of a charter school for mitigation must include provisions for its continued <br />existence, including but not limited to the transfer of ownership of the charter <br />school property and/or operation of the school to the School Board. <br />3. In exchange for the construction of a public school facility which provides more <br />capacity than required by the development subject to Proportionate Share Mitigation, <br />the developer will have the right to sell capacity credits for School Capacity in excess <br />of what was required to serve the Proposed Residential Development. <br />4. If and to the extent required by Florida Law, a Development Permit shall not be denied <br />because of inadequate Available School Capacity, if such capacity is available or may <br />be achieved pursuant to the provisions of Florida law or if the developer executes a <br />legally binding commitment to provide mitigation proportionate to the demand for <br />public school facilities to be created pursuant to the provisions of Florida law. Where a <br />Development Order requested is identified as requiring a conditional SCADL as set <br />forth in the table shown in Section 14.2, the conditions in Section 14.2(b)4i shall apply. <br />(e) For the mitigation options provided above, the costs associated with the identified mitigation <br />shall be based on the estimated cost of the improvement on the date that the improvement is <br />programmed for construction. Future costs will be calculated using estimated values at the time the <br />mitigation is anticipated to commence. <br />1. The cost of the mitigation <br />required <br />by <br />the developer shall be credited toward the <br />payment of his school impact fee. <br />2. If the developer's required mitigation cost is greater than the school impact fees for the <br />development, the difference between the developer's mitigation costs and the impact fee credit <br />is the responsibility of the developer. <br />(f) Upon conclusion of the ninety (90) day negotiation period, or as extended by mutual <br />agreement, a new School Capacity Availability Determination Letter shall be issued identifying <br />whether or not sufficient Available Student Capacity has been identified to serve the development. If <br />mitigation has been agreed to, the School District shall identify in the School Capacity Availability <br />Determination Letter that there is adequate Available School Capacity for the development, subject to <br />those mitigation measures agreed to by the Local Government, Developer and the School Board. Prior <br />to vesting approval of a Proportionate Share Mitigation project, the mitigation measures shall be <br />memorialized in an enforceable and binding agreement with the Local Government, the School Board <br />and the developer, and impact fees shall be paid. The mitigation agreement shall specifically detail <br />mitigation provisions, identify the capacity project, indicate the financial contribution to be paid by the <br />developer, provide a method of surety in form of a bond or letter of credit in the amount of the <br />contribution, and include any relevant terms and conditions. If mitigation is not agreed to, the School <br />Capacity Availability Determination Letter shall detail why any mitigation proposals were rejected and <br />detail why the Proposed Residential Development is not in compliance with school concurrency <br />requirements. <br />F \Community DevelopmentTsers'd.ONG RANGE\CompPlan Amendmenis\Publfc Schools\UpdatesULA\FINAL IRC Interlocal Alpeement- January 31, 2008.doc <br />28 <br />