While growth management issues are expected to receive only marginal attention this legislative session, a few ancillary growth issues will likely be heard.  One of the primary issues to attract some attention relates to the manner in which transportation projects can be funded through the proportionate share process in Ch. 163.  In brief, as a result of the growth management changes made in 2011, transportation concurrency is now optional for local governments.  In response to this change, several communities have created new, innovative approaches to dealing with transportation infrastructure and the demands created by new growth.  Some communities have implemented so-called mobility plans, essentially linking land use, location, transportation, and funding into a single strategy.   While these strategies are relatively new, there appears to be legislative interest in clarifying what they are and how they can be used by local governments.  Specifically, HB 319 by Representative Ray adds new language to s. 163.3180 that specifically defines what a mobility plan is.  The definition also attempts to bring this planning tool in-line with traditional concurrency and proportionate share funding by specifying the adoption of standards for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mobility, while precluding any deficiency costs in mobility fee calculations.  HB 319 does not yet have a Senate companion but FAC expects a similar bill to be filed. 

In addition to HB 319, a more restrictive bill, HB 321 by Representative LaRosa, has been filed to prohibit counties and cities from applying transportation or school concurrency and from charging proportionate share contributions for new development before July 1, 2016.  A provision in the bill does allow a county to overcome this forced moratorium by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners.  No Senate companion bill has been filed.