FLORIDA GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT 1985

CAPE CORAL POLITICS FLORIDA PALM TREES The Florida Growth Management Act of 1985—formally known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 (codified primarily in Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes)—was landmark legislation passed by the Florida Legislature and signed into law under Governor Bob Graham. It represented one of the most comprehensive and ambitious statewide efforts in the U.S. to manage rapid population growth, urban sprawl, environmental degradation, infrastructure strains, and related challenges during a period when Florida was seeing roughly 1,000 new residents per day.

Enacted amid concerns from the 1970s and early 1980s about unchecked development (building on earlier laws like the 1972 Environmental Land and Water Management Act and the 1975 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act), the 1985 Act overhauled local planning requirements and created an integrated state-regional-local framework. It drew inspiration from concepts like the “Quiet Revolution” in land use regulation and the American Law Institute’s Model Land Development Code.

Key Provisions and Requirements

The Act mandated a structured, multi-tiered system for planning and regulating growth:

Mandatory Local Comprehensive Plans — Every county and municipality (all cities and counties in the state) was required to adopt, maintain, and implement a comprehensive land use plan. These plans had to be consistent with state and regional plans (including the state comprehensive plan adopted in 1985).
Required Elements of Local Plans — Plans had to include specific components, such as:
Future land use maps designating all land into categories with varying development intensities.
Capital improvements element (identifying needed public facilities and funding).
Infrastructure elements (e.g., traffic circulation, sanitary sewer, potable water, drainage, solid waste).
Conservation, recreation/open space, housing, coastal management (where applicable), and others.
Financial feasibility requirements to ensure plans were realistic.
State Review and Compliance Process — The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviewed local plans and amendments for “compliance” with state criteria (detailed in administrative rules like Rule 9J-5). Noncompliance could lead to formal administrative hearings, sanctions (e.g., loss of state revenue sharing or grants), and enforcement actions.
Concurrency Requirement (often called the “teeth” of the Act) — One of the most innovative and impactful features: Development permits could only be issued if adequate public facilities (especially roads, water, sewer, drainage, solid waste, recreation, and mass transit) were available concurrent with (or in advance of) the impacts of new development. This “pay-as-you-grow” approach aimed to prevent development from outpacing infrastructure and shifted more costs to developers.
Plan Amendments — Most comprehensive plan amendments were limited to twice per year to prevent constant changes and promote stability.
Consistency Requirement — All land development regulations (zoning ordinances, subdivision rules, etc.) and development orders/permits had to be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
Enhanced Citizen Participation and Standing — The Act liberalized rules for citizens to challenge plans, amendments, or developments in administrative hearings or court, increasing public involvement and accountability.
Other Related Changes — The 1985 legislation also updated the Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) process, coastal construction rules, and related growth management tools.

A “glitch bill” in 1986 refined details, further defined consistency, strengthened concurrency, and approved key administrative rules.

Purpose and Impact

The Growth Management Act sought to:

Curb urban sprawl and promote more compact, efficient development.
Protect natural resources, water quality, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Ensure infrastructure kept pace with growth.
Coordinate planning across local, regional (water management districts and regional planning councils), and state levels.

It created one of the strongest statewide growth management systems in the country at the time, with significant influence on development patterns for decades.

Over time, the system faced criticism for being overly burdensome, contributing to housing shortages, or inconsistent enforcement. Major revisions occurred in later years (e.g., the 2011 Community Planning Act weakened or eliminated some requirements like statewide concurrency for certain facilities and shifted more authority to locals).

The core framework from 1985 laid the foundation for Florida’s approach to balancing growth with sustainability, especially relevant in a high-growth state like Florida.

Municipal Enforcement – Cape Coral

Yes, the Florida Growth Management Act of 1985 (formally the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, codified in Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes) can and must be enforced at the city (municipal) Cape Coral, Florida level, just as it applies to counties.

The 1985 Act explicitly required every county and every municipality (i.e., all incorporated cities in Florida) to adopt, implement, and enforce a comprehensive plan and related land development regulations. This applied statewide to both levels of local government without distinction.

Key Aspects of Enforcement at the City Level

Mandatory Comprehensive Plans — Cities were required to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans covering future land use, capital improvements, infrastructure (e.g., roads, water, sewer), conservation, housing, and more. These plans had to be consistent with state goals and reviewed for compliance by the state agency (originally the Department of Community Affairs, now largely handled under the Department of Economic Opportunity or successor frameworks).
Land Development Regulations — Cities must adopt and enforce zoning, subdivision rules, and other regulations consistent with their comprehensive plan. Florida Statutes (e.g., current §163.3202) require each municipality to “adopt or amend and enforce land development regulations” that implement the plan.
Concurrency — The signature “teeth” of the 1985 Act required cities (and counties) to ensure adequate public facilities (especially infrastructure like roads) were available concurrent with new development impacts. Cities enforced this through permitting decisions.
Consistency and Enforcement Mechanisms — All city development orders, permits, and regulations must be consistent with the adopted plan. Enforcement tools include:
State review and potential sanctions (historically via DCA).
Citizen suits or administrative challenges (enhanced standing under the Act).
Local denial of permits if inconsistent.

Important Updates and Current Status

The original 1985 framework has evolved significantly:

Major reforms in 2011 (Community Planning Act) and later years shifted much oversight from the state to local governments, eliminated mandatory statewide review for many plan amendments, and made concurrency optional for most facilities (except in limited cases, like transportation in some jurisdictions).
Cities still must maintain and enforce their comprehensive plans and consistent regulations under Chapter 163, Part II.
Many Florida cities (including those in high-growth areas like Cape Coral) continue to enforce plan-based rules, zoning, and development standards rooted in the 1985 Act’s legacy.

In short, enforcement occurs primarily at the local level — cities handle day-to-day implementation through their planning departments, zoning boards, and permitting processes. The state no longer has the same direct “top-down” enforcement role it did in the 1980s–2000s, but the statutory framework still mandates cities to uphold these requirements. If a city like Cape Coral fails to enforce its own plan or regulations, challenges can arise through local processes, citizen actions, or limited state intervention.

Mandated Water and Sewer Infrastructure Projects

The Florida Growth Management Act of 1985 (officially the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, enacted via Chapter 85-55, Laws of Florida, and codified in Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes) does not stipulate or outline specific methods for how mandated water and sewer infrastructure projects (occurring or planned in municipalities) should be paid for, nor does it explicitly require or ensure minimal impact on homeowners (e.g., through protections against rate increases, assessments, or taxes).

Core Focus of the 1985 Act on Water/Sewer Infrastructure

The Act’s primary mechanism for addressing water and sewer (potable water and sanitary sewer) infrastructure is the concurrency requirement (§163.3180, as originally enacted), often described as the “teeth” of the law. It mandates that:

Public facilities and services needed to support development must be available concurrent with (at the same time as or in advance of) the impacts of new development.
Required facilities subject to mandatory concurrency included potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, roads, and (where applicable) parks/recreation and mass transit.
No development permit could be issued unless adequate capacity existed or was planned and funded to meet adopted levels of service (LOS) standards.

This shifted the burden to ensure infrastructure kept pace with growth but focused on timing and availability, not on prescribing funding sources or protecting existing residents/homeowners from costs.

Provisions Related to Funding and Payment

The Act required each local government (including municipalities) to include a Capital Improvements Element (CIE) in its comprehensive plan (§163.3177(3), as amended in 1985):

The CIE had to outline principles for constructing, extending, or increasing capacity of public facilities (including water and sewer).
It required estimated public facility costs, timing, general locations, and projected revenue sources to fund them.
A 5-year schedule of capital improvements was required, identifying projects needed to implement the plan and maintain LOS standards.
Standards for availability and adequacy of facilities (including LOS) were mandated.

However, the 1985 law did not dictate specific funding mechanisms (e.g., who pays what portion via taxes, rates, bonds, impact fees, assessments, etc.). It left funding details flexible and to local discretion, as long as the plan demonstrated realistic projected sources. Common local approaches included:

Developer-funded improvements (e.g., on-site extensions or contributions).
Impact fees (authorized separately under other statutes).
Utility rate increases.
Bonds or general taxes.
Grants or intergovernmental funding.

There was no explicit requirement in the 1985 Act to minimize financial impacts on existing homeowners, such as prohibiting or limiting rate hikes, special assessments on existing properties, or shifting costs away from new development. In practice, concurrency often encouraged shifting more costs to new development (via developer exactions, impact fees, or proportionate-share contributions), which indirectly helped reduce burdens on existing residents—but this was a policy outcome, not a statutory mandate for “minimal impact.”

Key Limitations and Later Changes

The original 1985 framework emphasized planning and concurrency over prescriptive funding rules. Financial feasibility was implied through projected sources in the CIE (Capital Improvements Element ), but not strictly enforced as “demonstrated” until later amendments (e.g., stronger rules in the 1990s, then relaxed in 2011 via the Community Planning Act).

Post-1985 reforms (e.g., 2011 changes) further de-emphasized mandatory statewide concurrency for many facilities (keeping it only for sanitary sewer, potable water, drainage, and solid waste on a statewide basis, with others optional). Funding remains largely a local matter.

In summary, while the Act required municipalities to plan for and ensure water/sewer capacity concurrent with growth—and to identify projected funding in their CIE—it did not detail or mandate specific payment methods or homeowner protections. Those aspects were left to local governments, utility policies, and other statutes (e.g., on impact fees or utility ratemaking). This flexibility allowed varied approaches across Florida cities, including in high-growth areas like Cape Coral, but without statewide guarantees of minimal homeowner impact.

Additional Websites Created by Joe Angrisano: