Growth and Public Facilities

1. Growth and Public Facilities • To developers the four “services” that make land developable are: • Zoning 3) Water • Roads 4) Sewer • This is not meant to suggest that public facilities ‘create’ growth. “What they do is influence the location of growth. Building new roads and sewer lines in a freestanding community with a stagnant economy will not magically create economic development.” (Infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient.) • Why do public facilities shape growth patterns? --Consumers follow developers --Costs of infrastructure keep developers from truly raw land--The law  Developers cannot heavily develop land without adequate sewer facilities--Poor transportation access means poor site selection for almost all uses--Water is required for almost all uses; In arid climates water systems shape growth

2. Typical Community Planning Documents The Comprehensive Plan- Should focus on physical development- Should be long range- Should be comprehensive- Should be general and remain general- Should clearly relate physical design proposals to the basic policies of the plan Typical Parts of the Plan- Land use inventory- Public facilities inventory- Transportation element- Goals and policies Updated Irregularly The Capital Improvements Program- A rolling 5 or 6 year spending plan for capital improvements- “Sets forth the policies and proposals for systematically maintaining, upgrading, and replacing a jurisdiction’s physical plant” Typical Parts of the Program- Budget outlays (expenditures)- Budget sources (incomes)- Funded Projects Updated Annually or Semi-Annually

3. Relationship Between Comp Plan and CIP • There is often surprisingly little relationship between these two very important planning documents. Why? • Different time framesComp Plan  Long TermCIP  Short/Medium Term • Different actors are involved/Different Planning processesComp Plan  Planners, Public officials, Public CIP  City manager, Dept heads, Legislative body thru • View of these Plans Comp Plan  Seen as a rough guide, not a policymaking tool CIP  A policy document that guides annual investment decisions • “The principle problem is that the comprehensive planning process is detached procedurally, politically, and practically from the planning process for public facilities.” • As a consequence, municipal governments do not utilize the “growth shaping” abilities of infrastructure; infrastructure reacts to, rather than guides, growth.

4. The Comprehensive Plan Community Vision Goals, Objectives for City/County The “Big Picture” Planning Document Guide Guide Guide The Capital Budget (Year 1, CIP) Years 2-5 “The Rolling Spending Plan” The Operating Budget The CIP The Annual Budget The Ideal Relationship Between Documents

5. “DUMB GROWTH” --Leapfrog Development --Overloaded Infra --Reactive Planning In this model, the CIP process is largely unrelated to and unaffected by the Comprehensive Plan. Investments in infrastructure happen with little regard to the long-term vision of the community. The Current Comp Planning Model Capital Improvement Program Infrastructure Investments At best, a tenuous relationship between CIP and Comp Plan Land Use Regulations Comprehensive Plan

6. SMART GROWTH --Compact Dev. --Growth Shapers --Proactive Planning In this model, the choice of infrastructure investments is based upon the long-term vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan, therefore, is “implemented” through two complementary means; 1) the regulatory process (land use regs) and 2) investments in infrastructure systems The Desired Comp Planning Model Comprehensive Plan Land Use Regulations Capital Improvement Program Infrastructure Investments

7. Kelly’s Mix of Effective GM Elements In Chapter 4 of his PAS report, Kelly outlines what he considers to be an effective mix of elements that will tie growth to public facilities (Growth Management through Infrastructure Provision). Land Use Controls1. Timing Element for Future Land UsesInclude “timing” in future land use designations2. Timing Controls on Permitted DevelopmentEvery development should have a time limit that it can encumber capacity of different systems Infrastructure Controls3. Adequate Public Facilities StandardsDefensible, usable standards to encumber public facilities4. Investments Guided by the Comprehensive PlanDon’t build facilities just because you can; All growth is not created equal; Build only what makes sense given the vision of the community Other Issues5. Replace Exactions with Impact FeesBeware of “free” public facilities; Carefully implement Impact Fees6. Influence other Government AgenciesGet all agencies onboard with “infrastructure as growth shapers”.

8. Examples from TLC Comp Plan • Following are items from the Future Land Use Element of the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan, including: 1) TLC’s Urban Service Area Boundary 2) Policies on Urban Services 3) Urban Fringe Growth Areas 4) County Future Land Use Map 5) Urban Area Future Land Use Map

10. TLC’s Urban Service Area Strategy The Urban Service Area strategy has the following implications for capital improvement budgeting: 1) Capital infrastructure will not be programmed or extended to areas outside the designated urban service area unless the infrastructure is needed to serve population located within the Urban Service Area. 2) Areas within the Urban Service Area can expect capital infrastructure and services to be available within the time frame of the plan (2010 for Phase I and 2020 for Phase II (Effective 4/18/02)). 3) Capital improvement projects or expenditures designed to support urban density outside of the Urban Service Area will not occur outside the designated Urban Service Area unless a demonstrated hardship can be shown.