Proposed Polk Residential Growth Cap Petition
Comments/Questions
Questions by:
Comments/Questions
Questions by:
Celeste Deardorff, AICP, Manager
City of Lakeland
Long Range Planning
Response by:
City of Lakeland
Long Range Planning
Response by:
John Ryan
Growth Cap Coalition
Date: June 16, 2008
Comments/Questions
1.a.
Growth Cap Coalition
Date: June 16, 2008
Comments/Questions
1.a.
Polk County and many local city staff members, elected officials, citizens and interest groups attended the MyRegion.org “How Shall We Grow” Vision meeting series. Our consensus was to support the center city scenario in which much of the undeveloped lands could remain as is, e.g. often as agricultural and/or environmental resource areas, while promoting new densities and growth in and near the existing urban cities where infrastructure and services exist. The MyRegion consensus seems to be very similar to the premise of the current petition, meaning we have similar views on directing future growth toward urban areas.
1.b.
All cities in Polk County and Polk County are required to evaluate their comprehensive plans and then draft and adopt an update to those long range plans to address growth management issues for at least the next 10 years, and, in the county’s case, the next 20 years. These updates will be due in the next 1-3 years. This will present an opportunity for the County and the cities to discuss what kinds of policies and programs can be most effective in trying to support the MyRegion Vision document.
1.c.
Of the 17 cities in Polk County, 14 participated with the County and the School Board in recently establishing new school facility planning elements to their comprehensive plans including a common level of service standard and requirement for school concurrency. It took over two years of meetings and workshops but clearly we can work together when needed to achieve consensus on an issue that is politically challenging.
1.d.
Question: given the above, the timing of the growth cap petition is puzzling; please explain why it is in the public interest and most effective to pursue this ballot issue now versus working with the planning groups first over the next several years? Furthermore, this ballot, if approved, will negate much of the point of trying to get City and metro Lakeland input into the pending Lakeland Vision update to be kicked off this fall given we could not assign higher densities where the public supported them since those densities would require approval of a TDR not subject to city control. The response I recall from Mr. Ryan was that the County has not allowed such coordination. I believe he may’ve been referring to the County not allowing the petition to be put on the voter ballot. I’m not sure what other way the County would have prevented the Coalition from trying to work with local planners in the pending growth plan update process….? Please clarify.
GCC RESPONSE TO #1 a to c
Urban sprawl is occurring now. A few Polk County cities have been very responsive to issues relating to sprawl but many have not. Outside of a Charter Amendment, there is no mechanism in Florida law to address the issues of sprawl caused by cities. All the work of MyRegion.Org and others is meaningless when municipalities ignore what these organizations are offering as solutions.
When asked, the County Commission, who could address city sprawl by modification to the Charter, chose to take no action. The Growth Cap Coalition was open to dialog and modification of their plans by working with both the County and Polk’s cities.
We proposed to move forward by capping growth in 2008 and deliberate between now and 2010 to establish the Urban Service Area. Between 2008 and 2010, we proposed coordinating with all jurisdictions and new Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) cycles to set Urban Service Area boundaries and trading mechanisms.
A third alternative was to wait with firm assurances that all elements of the petition would move forward in 2010. In that case, the language would be worked out with all cities and the County and the language would have been offered to voters all at one time.
Our preference was for the second alternative. We stated for the record that all these options would have been acceptable. The County Commission's decision was to do nothing.
This afforded us no opportunity for dialog with the County and Cities to deal with changes in boundaries, data, and policy. We had to go with the basis of the original proposal after nearly 5 months of attempting to work something out with the County.
We would certainly agree to look at other options, given time constraints - even now, but there is no expressed interest.
Making changes within the context of multiple comprehensive plans without enacting statute or modification to Polk's Charter, has no enforceable effect, no matter how laudable the goal. We are still willing to offer alternative language, but it would mean that 4 County Commissioners would have to approve alternative language.
The short answer to Question Number 4 is yes, it would be better to work on a comprehensive approach over the next few years. The issue is that no one in authority has expressed any interest in doing so.
Clarification: Transfers of density are entirely within a city’s control. No transfer of density (rather than a development right) occurs until both Polk and a city that wants to transfer density adopt land development code to implement it. The charter merely grants the power to allow inter-jurisdictional transfers.
2.
GCC RESPONSE TO #1 a to c
Urban sprawl is occurring now. A few Polk County cities have been very responsive to issues relating to sprawl but many have not. Outside of a Charter Amendment, there is no mechanism in Florida law to address the issues of sprawl caused by cities. All the work of MyRegion.Org and others is meaningless when municipalities ignore what these organizations are offering as solutions.
When asked, the County Commission, who could address city sprawl by modification to the Charter, chose to take no action. The Growth Cap Coalition was open to dialog and modification of their plans by working with both the County and Polk’s cities.
We proposed to move forward by capping growth in 2008 and deliberate between now and 2010 to establish the Urban Service Area. Between 2008 and 2010, we proposed coordinating with all jurisdictions and new Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) cycles to set Urban Service Area boundaries and trading mechanisms.
A third alternative was to wait with firm assurances that all elements of the petition would move forward in 2010. In that case, the language would be worked out with all cities and the County and the language would have been offered to voters all at one time.
Our preference was for the second alternative. We stated for the record that all these options would have been acceptable. The County Commission's decision was to do nothing.
This afforded us no opportunity for dialog with the County and Cities to deal with changes in boundaries, data, and policy. We had to go with the basis of the original proposal after nearly 5 months of attempting to work something out with the County.
We would certainly agree to look at other options, given time constraints - even now, but there is no expressed interest.
Making changes within the context of multiple comprehensive plans without enacting statute or modification to Polk's Charter, has no enforceable effect, no matter how laudable the goal. We are still willing to offer alternative language, but it would mean that 4 County Commissioners would have to approve alternative language.
The short answer to Question Number 4 is yes, it would be better to work on a comprehensive approach over the next few years. The issue is that no one in authority has expressed any interest in doing so.
Clarification: Transfers of density are entirely within a city’s control. No transfer of density (rather than a development right) occurs until both Polk and a city that wants to transfer density adopt land development code to implement it. The charter merely grants the power to allow inter-jurisdictional transfers.
2.
TDR programs are very complex to administer; does the Coalition have examples of where a TDR program is working well (a) in Florida? Or (b) elsewhere? If so, please provide examples and contact information if possible.
GCC RESPONSE TO #2:
The proposed amendment was not designed to fit into a true transfer of development right program. Technically, we are not transferring development rights, but density. Where that density is applied is defined by the receiving jurisdiction, not the Charter Amendment. Concerning the more general question, the design behind the Amendment is not TDR models but Cap and Trade economic models. The economic mechanisms behind cap and trade have been successfully implemented both regionally and nationwide, though this would be the first time anywhere that these models would be applied to density. The cap and trade mechanism is much more responsive and dynamic as a means for responding to changing economic conditions.
Administration of such a Cap and Trade system would be principally implemented by both the public and private sector. Unlike a TDR program, which does not fit well within current systems, a Cap and Trade program will require little to no new administrative structures, though some modification is required and new LDC language would need to be developed.
3.
GCC RESPONSE TO #2:
The proposed amendment was not designed to fit into a true transfer of development right program. Technically, we are not transferring development rights, but density. Where that density is applied is defined by the receiving jurisdiction, not the Charter Amendment. Concerning the more general question, the design behind the Amendment is not TDR models but Cap and Trade economic models. The economic mechanisms behind cap and trade have been successfully implemented both regionally and nationwide, though this would be the first time anywhere that these models would be applied to density. The cap and trade mechanism is much more responsive and dynamic as a means for responding to changing economic conditions.
Administration of such a Cap and Trade system would be principally implemented by both the public and private sector. Unlike a TDR program, which does not fit well within current systems, a Cap and Trade program will require little to no new administrative structures, though some modification is required and new LDC language would need to be developed.
3.
As an urban area, we must be concerned with redevelopment and infill sites. If a developer needed a higher density to develop on an infill site but needed about 20 more units to do so, that would require, under the growth petition, buying the rights to those 20 units from somewhere in the County. If it was a rural area of Polk, where the land use is A/RR and the density is 1 unit to 5 acres, the developer would have to purchase the development rights to at least 100 acres in order to acquire the rights to put in just 20 more units in the city. That kind of added cost and time could discourage infill densities rather than encourage it. Every major city in our county has designated Community Redevelopment Areas, declaring the need and desire to redevelop. Please consider that the ballot proposal gives us little to no time to discuss the drawbacks and benefits of how one would structure the envisioned TDR program yet it could have a major adverse impact on most of the cities in our county.
GCC RESPONSE TO #3
Number 3 suggests a TDR program is to be implemented. As explained earlier, that is not the case. Yes, there is density recognized in Comprehensive Plans "by right," and densities that are recognized "by vesting". Vested density is not transferable unless the structures that vested density to the land are removed, so I will not discuss vested density. These "by right" densities are recognized in the base land density for each land use. Government holds densities to distribute as its legislative and appointed bodies choose as long as it is consistent with Comp Plans and LDC's that allow the awarding of additional densities. These densities can be entirely consumed, and thus a city could permit and a developer would obtain density from lands in the county. But to assume that that discretionary allocation of density is not available would be inaccurate. All residential density that is held by private property owners and that aggregate density held by government is available to local government. It is likely that government will be more diligent in allocating density to particular developments than they are today, knowing that there is a maximum allocation. Nonetheless, local governments have that density available to them to apply, thus this is not a TDR program.
If, in the future, circumstances arise that a city or urban service area no longer has additional allocation, then yes, purchases could occur or the County or another city could award allocations it has in its inventory with no financial remuneration (however unlikely). In the case of a density credit purchase, unlike a TDR program, there are differing values based on where the density comes from by location. Most likely, density transfers in rural areas where no road or infrastructure exists, would be a small portion of the fee value of the land. Inquiries around the country and Florida, lead us to believe that these lands generate density values of approximately 10% of fee since there is very little likelihood that the property would be developed. These would be areas having high environmental and agricultural values and the loss of densities would protect these areas from increases in federal, state, and local taxes. Over time these lands would be consumed and yes, decades from now, the density credits may rise to 50% of fee value. Once the cheapest lands are consumed, percentages of rural land values applied in urban areas would still have little impact given the higher densities that would be allowed.
4.
GCC RESPONSE TO #3
Number 3 suggests a TDR program is to be implemented. As explained earlier, that is not the case. Yes, there is density recognized in Comprehensive Plans "by right," and densities that are recognized "by vesting". Vested density is not transferable unless the structures that vested density to the land are removed, so I will not discuss vested density. These "by right" densities are recognized in the base land density for each land use. Government holds densities to distribute as its legislative and appointed bodies choose as long as it is consistent with Comp Plans and LDC's that allow the awarding of additional densities. These densities can be entirely consumed, and thus a city could permit and a developer would obtain density from lands in the county. But to assume that that discretionary allocation of density is not available would be inaccurate. All residential density that is held by private property owners and that aggregate density held by government is available to local government. It is likely that government will be more diligent in allocating density to particular developments than they are today, knowing that there is a maximum allocation. Nonetheless, local governments have that density available to them to apply, thus this is not a TDR program.
If, in the future, circumstances arise that a city or urban service area no longer has additional allocation, then yes, purchases could occur or the County or another city could award allocations it has in its inventory with no financial remuneration (however unlikely). In the case of a density credit purchase, unlike a TDR program, there are differing values based on where the density comes from by location. Most likely, density transfers in rural areas where no road or infrastructure exists, would be a small portion of the fee value of the land. Inquiries around the country and Florida, lead us to believe that these lands generate density values of approximately 10% of fee since there is very little likelihood that the property would be developed. These would be areas having high environmental and agricultural values and the loss of densities would protect these areas from increases in federal, state, and local taxes. Over time these lands would be consumed and yes, decades from now, the density credits may rise to 50% of fee value. Once the cheapest lands are consumed, percentages of rural land values applied in urban areas would still have little impact given the higher densities that would be allowed.
4.
Increased densities are not a popular issue with most residents. Case in point, the many citizens at the growth forum who voiced that they have no interest in an urban lifestyle or that they like their one-acre lots. With this to contend with, convincing residents of the long term benefits of higher density is already an uphill battle. If we also have to introduce a challenge to the development community regarding developing at higher densities due to a mandatory TDR program rather than an incentive based program, why is it reasonable to expect the densities we espouse to actually develop or emerge?
GCC RESPONSE TO # 4:
Aside from the TDR comment, you are correct, density is a popular issue with most residents. In rural areas of the County, the Charter Amendment would work to insure a rural environment. There would no longer be the expectation that increased residential density and sprawl would occur merely by annexation. As it relates to areas within the Suburban and Urban Service Areas, residents will expect that densities would remain suburban. But in the urban areas, there is no public expectation of lower densities. In fact, in markets that are developing all over the eastern U.S., residents are looking more towards higher densities where urban services cost less per household, and amenities are available within their neighborhood. Currently, there is only one city actively looking at the urban living market in Polk County, though several are entertaining the idea. Bottom line here is that the Charter Amendment doesn't take local land use authority away from local governments. It just limits the increases in density beyond the urban service area and limits the maximum density allocated. Nothing a Charter amendment does will harden the backbone of local officials who have it in their power to govern the location of urban residential areas. They may use the amendment as an excuse for doing what they should have been doing for years, but if they don't get a backbone then the scenario you describe will happen. If the amendment had not been proposed, we would have more of the same anyway. Trusting government to do the right thing has not worked so far. Someone, anyone, come up with a better solution! I'd like to be a part of something better than we propose.... Tell me… Just tell me what?
5.
GCC RESPONSE TO # 4:
Aside from the TDR comment, you are correct, density is a popular issue with most residents. In rural areas of the County, the Charter Amendment would work to insure a rural environment. There would no longer be the expectation that increased residential density and sprawl would occur merely by annexation. As it relates to areas within the Suburban and Urban Service Areas, residents will expect that densities would remain suburban. But in the urban areas, there is no public expectation of lower densities. In fact, in markets that are developing all over the eastern U.S., residents are looking more towards higher densities where urban services cost less per household, and amenities are available within their neighborhood. Currently, there is only one city actively looking at the urban living market in Polk County, though several are entertaining the idea. Bottom line here is that the Charter Amendment doesn't take local land use authority away from local governments. It just limits the increases in density beyond the urban service area and limits the maximum density allocated. Nothing a Charter amendment does will harden the backbone of local officials who have it in their power to govern the location of urban residential areas. They may use the amendment as an excuse for doing what they should have been doing for years, but if they don't get a backbone then the scenario you describe will happen. If the amendment had not been proposed, we would have more of the same anyway. Trusting government to do the right thing has not worked so far. Someone, anyone, come up with a better solution! I'd like to be a part of something better than we propose.... Tell me… Just tell me what?
5.
The growth cap petition purports to encourage transit services and efficient use of infrastructure such as water and wastewater. Transit studies indicate a need for about 7 units/acre of residential densities in order to support such services. However, much of Polk County land areas near the cities has been designated as Residential Suburban, RS, which allows up to 3 units per acre. If developers choose the path of least resistance, they can simply go to the RS areas and look for services to develop at those densities rather than have to buy land and purchase additional transfer rights somewhere. Those densities will not efficiently promote transit services which are subject to very high fuel costs like the rest of us, nor will it promote as efficient use of infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, roads) as does urban infill. Again, I think we need to understand more clearly the costs and benefits of any proposed TDR program before telling the citizens of Polk County that a given growth proposal will in fact achieve those benefits.
GCC RESPONSE TO #5
Yeah, well if the cities consistently increase suburban development areas, then you are right. The scenario you propose will happen regardless, unless you don't let it. Change densities based on its proximity to the urban core. The Growth Cap Amendment is not a solution to all growth management problems. Local authorities must take responsibility too. The higher the density you allow in and around the urban core the greater the opportunities for mass transit. Even the Governor's Climate Action Team is advocating these changes and SB 1544 requires local governments to address the climate change implications of development and transportation.
6.
GCC RESPONSE TO #5
Yeah, well if the cities consistently increase suburban development areas, then you are right. The scenario you propose will happen regardless, unless you don't let it. Change densities based on its proximity to the urban core. The Growth Cap Amendment is not a solution to all growth management problems. Local authorities must take responsibility too. The higher the density you allow in and around the urban core the greater the opportunities for mass transit. Even the Governor's Climate Action Team is advocating these changes and SB 1544 requires local governments to address the climate change implications of development and transportation.
6.
In part 2 of the petition it states that the Urban Service Area is the municipal boundary or where a city may be “obligated” to provide services for development. Does this mean where a city provides the service currently, e.g., where we have water lines in the ground as of Nov. 8 only? Or, does it refer to the city’s official water service area, as in where we have the legal right to provide service (even though they may have to extend lines to the property etc) and first right of refusal for same before the user can seek service from the County or via a well permitted by the water management district (known as our service area…)
GCC RESPONSE TO # 6
Your question relating to Urban Service area is where the city may be "obligated" to provide services for the development at the time of the referendum. If a city is obligated and has a legal right to provide such services under FS 180 then yes, it means those areas. If cities just say they are going to provide such services, then no.
7.
GCC RESPONSE TO # 6
Your question relating to Urban Service area is where the city may be "obligated" to provide services for the development at the time of the referendum. If a city is obligated and has a legal right to provide such services under FS 180 then yes, it means those areas. If cities just say they are going to provide such services, then no.
7.
Please clarify the intent and/or consider changing the wording of the second part of the petition; see attached excerpt, #2, in which it states “ANY proposed comprehensive plan amendment increasing the size of the Urban Service Area in Polk County shall be subject to referendum of the general electorate of Polk County.”
Note that the language does not specify or limit the USA change boundary referendum solely to a proposal for new, higher density residential land uses. Thus, any land use change for non-residential uses, such as employment uses, that might also require a USA boundary change, would require the referendum, correct? If residential growth is the concern of the coalition, should the petition limit the referenda requirement for USA changes to only where new residential is proposed?
GCC RESPONSE TO #7
Taken separately, I agree any USA boundary changes would require a vote by the electorate for non-residential uses. Legally though, this is a single subject referendum so limitations to density and intensity issues that the USA boundary proposes to address concerns residential, not other non-residential land uses.
Since annexation can occur outside the Urban Service Area with no limitation to the city other than residential upzoning and by law this petition applies as a single subject, we foresee no problems with the city annexing property for purposes other than residential.
Under the strictest interpretation of the amendment language, a city would petition the County for changes in Land Use prior to annexation and there would be no limitations placed on uses other than residential. Commercial, industrial, institutional or business activity would proceed.
If you'd like a clarification of that language, then propose it. It is possible that the GCC and 4 county commissioners can agree to a proposed change for clarification purposes prior to submission to the Supervisor of Elections.
8.
Note that the language does not specify or limit the USA change boundary referendum solely to a proposal for new, higher density residential land uses. Thus, any land use change for non-residential uses, such as employment uses, that might also require a USA boundary change, would require the referendum, correct? If residential growth is the concern of the coalition, should the petition limit the referenda requirement for USA changes to only where new residential is proposed?
GCC RESPONSE TO #7
Taken separately, I agree any USA boundary changes would require a vote by the electorate for non-residential uses. Legally though, this is a single subject referendum so limitations to density and intensity issues that the USA boundary proposes to address concerns residential, not other non-residential land uses.
Since annexation can occur outside the Urban Service Area with no limitation to the city other than residential upzoning and by law this petition applies as a single subject, we foresee no problems with the city annexing property for purposes other than residential.
Under the strictest interpretation of the amendment language, a city would petition the County for changes in Land Use prior to annexation and there would be no limitations placed on uses other than residential. Commercial, industrial, institutional or business activity would proceed.
If you'd like a clarification of that language, then propose it. It is possible that the GCC and 4 county commissioners can agree to a proposed change for clarification purposes prior to submission to the Supervisor of Elections.
8.
The cost of the referendum was discussed at the forum and Mr. Ryan indicated that the cost would be nothing since the ballot or any future referenda it required would go on the general election dates versus requiring a special election. Thus, any time any urban service area boundary change is proposed, a locality would need to wait until the general election for the issue to be decided. This results in a couple more issues and questions:
a. If the locality has an important economic prospect and needs to amend its city limit or the growth boundary in order to serve the project, it must wait, during which time the prospect may choose to proceed in a different county.
b. Even if everyone agreed to wait for the ballot, would they first process the land use amendment (and zoning) at the local and state levels with the risk of the USA change on the ballot failing? Or, would they first wait to pursue the ballot change and then have to wait up to another 9 months to obtain city land use (that is how long it takes from application through effective date of regular land use changes in a city)? What are some of the likely economic consequences of such an approach?
GCC RESPONSE TO # 8
Concerning the circumstance described in 8a: If that economic prospect is residential development, you are right they will have to wait. And if they go to another other county, well then ..... go. If on the other hand, if it is a non-residential or mixed use with the residential not exceeding the density and intensity values found in Polk County's Comprehensive Plan, then, in our opinion, the response to question Number 7 applies and the prospect can proceed.
8b: And in any case, under those circumstances, a Comprehensive Plan amendment would need to be offered to FDCA and, as long as the referendum occurs after the evaluation and approval by FDCA it can go forward. The length of time is longer than a Comp Plan Amendment and annexation alone but those processes can occur on the same clock as long as the referendum is after FDCA. Yes, it could fail, but it could fail with the Planning Commission. It could fail with the legislative body. There are no more assurances with government actions than there are with the electorate. Most often all boundary amendments would be in one vote, unless the local jurisdiction broke it out for an individual vote, which the amendment would not preclude. By default all amendments would be one vote, but nothing precludes more than one vote.
9.
GCC RESPONSE TO # 8
Concerning the circumstance described in 8a: If that economic prospect is residential development, you are right they will have to wait. And if they go to another other county, well then ..... go. If on the other hand, if it is a non-residential or mixed use with the residential not exceeding the density and intensity values found in Polk County's Comprehensive Plan, then, in our opinion, the response to question Number 7 applies and the prospect can proceed.
8b: And in any case, under those circumstances, a Comprehensive Plan amendment would need to be offered to FDCA and, as long as the referendum occurs after the evaluation and approval by FDCA it can go forward. The length of time is longer than a Comp Plan Amendment and annexation alone but those processes can occur on the same clock as long as the referendum is after FDCA. Yes, it could fail, but it could fail with the Planning Commission. It could fail with the legislative body. There are no more assurances with government actions than there are with the electorate. Most often all boundary amendments would be in one vote, unless the local jurisdiction broke it out for an individual vote, which the amendment would not preclude. By default all amendments would be one vote, but nothing precludes more than one vote.
9.
A referendum for a USA change occurring near Haines City, Lakeland or some other city would require the general electorate to vote on it, including voters from anywhere in Polk County. Beyond the question of their motivation and inclination to show up to vote, can you explain a bit of the rational nexus for all voters to be included in deciding issues that may be very geographically distant?
GCC RESPONSE TO # 9
By law, modifications to the Charter and modifications authorized by the Charter are Countywide, including all municipalities. The changes that you suggest would not reflect the case law on this issue so we were not comfortable in modifying the language beyond what other counties have implemented.
GCC RESPONSE TO # 9
By law, modifications to the Charter and modifications authorized by the Charter are Countywide, including all municipalities. The changes that you suggest would not reflect the case law on this issue so we were not comfortable in modifying the language beyond what other counties have implemented.
0 comments:
Post a Comment