Marion County commissioners discussed proposed wording for the transportation element of the county's comprehensive plan at a Jan. 9 workshop, focusing on how adopted level-of-service standards would be applied and whether the draft policy properly reflects state concurrency law.

The discussion centered on policy 211, which in part reads: "Adopted LOS standards shall be used as the criteria to measure the available capacity of functionally classified facilities that are part of the traffic circulation system. LOS standards shall not compel or require the county to widen or construct new roadways outside of the urban growth boundary to provide capacity to support new developments or to address the unmitigated impact of development from adjacent municipalities and counties." Commissioners and staff said the sentence mixes two different concepts'DOT functional classifications and the county's urban growth boundary'and could produce unintended consequences if left as written.

Why this matters: LOS and concurrency provisions shape when and whether the county must plan or fund road capacity improvements, and they affect developer mitigation responsibilities. Commissioners said they want the comprehensive plan to be clear about who would pay for or provide capacity improvements and when the county should begin planning or funding those projects.

Board members and consultants raised several concerns and clarifications. Amber Gardner, the Kimley-Horn transportation expert on the panel, noted that adoption of LOS standards in Florida generally uses FDOT's guidance and the Highway Capacity Manual to translate speeds and signal progression into generalized service volumes. Gardner summarized those relationships and cited specific travel-speed thresholds used in practice: "For a level service D, it defines it as travel speeds greater than, over the course of the entire segment, greater than 18 miles per hour." She walked the board through how FDOT's Quality Level of Service (QLOS) tables and the Highway Capacity Manual convert corridor travel speeds into letter-grade LOS.

Several commissioners urged more proactive planning. Vice Chairman Zalick said the county should begin planning earlier so improvements are in place before corridors fail, proposing a policy trigger at "75% or 80% of these level of services" so the county does not wait until facilities are already at or past capacity. Commissioner McLean and others emphasized that many county road segments already fail the adopted standards and said policy changes should be data-driven rather than premised on public feeling.

Legal and statutory guidance: Commissioners asked staff to confirm how the proposed language aligns with Florida's concurrency statutes. County legal counsel and staff pointed to Florida Statute Chapter 163 and related concurrency provisions. A staff member recommended direct consultation with the county attorney to ensure the policy's second sentence meets statutory requirements. The board directed staff to review the cited statutes with counsel and return with suggested language and legal analysis.

Data and follow-up work: Staff and consultants noted the county's 2023 TPO congestion-management plan and the FDOT QLOS handbook as the technical bases being used to set service volumes. The TPO's 2023 congestion-management plan shows specific county road segments already exceeding adopted standards (examples cited by staff included County Road 35 north of State Road 40, County Road 42 and County Road 484). Commissioners asked for visual modeling of corridor operations (signal progression, intersection performance) and for site-specific studies where generalized FDOT tables may not reflect actual corridor behavior.

Directives and next steps: The board instructed staff and consultants to:
- Consult the county attorney and Florida Statute Chapter 163 to confirm whether the draft policy contradicts concurrency requirements and to prepare recommended replacement language;
- Return to the board with precise options that distinguish (a) county responsibilities vs. developer mitigation obligations and (b) how to treat constrained facilities or scenic roadways;
- Provide visual models and corridor-specific data for follow-up workshops; and
- Schedule a focused LOS workshop later in the process (staff indicated a workshop in March for deeper analysis).

The board did not take a formal vote on the language at the workshop; the outcome was direction to staff for additional legal and technical work.

The transportation element review will continue at follow-up sessions where staff will present recommended redrafts and corridor-level data.