An Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO, also known as a Concurrency Regulation) is an American legislative method to tie public infrastructure to growth for a region.[1]
APFOs take into account the availability of infrastructure. They can manage growth, but are considered separate from growth controls such as building moratoria.[2] [3]
Ramapo, New York (see Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo); Petaluma, California; and Boulder, Colorado were some of the early adopters of this tool in America.[4] The state of Florida uses the term "concurrency" in its growth management act.[5]
APFO regulations are typically applied to a jurisdiction which has legislative control of a given area. In America, this can be at a state, county, or city level. A conflict can occur when APFO regulations differ in scope between jurisdictions where there is shared funding and legislative authority (such as a city located inside a county that funds schools).[6] While APFOs are intended to mitigate infrastructure shortcomings for a particular area, the mitigation may apply to areas offsite of the development project.[7] APFO regulations usually apply to individual projects on a case-by-case basis.[8]
APFO regulations take into account some or all of a jurisdiction's infrastructure requirements, including:[9]
Other elements include:
Traditional opponents of APFO legislation include industries affected by moratoria or fees, including realtors, developers, and some Smart Growth advocates.[10] Home costs for some locations that have enacted APFO have experienced increases in housing prices affecting affordable housing, in conjunction with positive effects of relief from school capacity shortcomings.[11]