Session 6 -- Growth Management Update: An update on the implementation of Florida's growth management laws

Moderator, Mr. David Littlejohn, Office of the General Counsel, Florida Department of Transportation
Mr. Robert C. Downie II, Shareholder, Carlton Fields, P.A., Tallahassee Office
Mr. Charles Gauthier, AICP, Director, Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning
Mr. Wayne Tedder, Director, Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department -- Presentation

David Littlejohn introduced the presenters. The panel discussed issues related to implementing state concurrency requirements from the state, FDOT District, local government, and private developer perspectives. Examples of what does not seem to be working and examples of successful state/local/private partnerships to address concurrency problems and fund new capacity projects were presented. Changing the way Level of Service (LOS) is measured, the concept of a statewide capacity fee, and the likelihood of further changes to state growth management laws in the next legislative session were discussed.

Charles Gauthier stated that the general perception and perspective of DCA is that the 2005 amendments to growth management changes are not working as intended. Concurrency permitting is strongly tied to transportation. Local governments set most Level of Service (LOS) standards, and the standards seem to be getting lower and lower. Currently there is a “last developer in” problem, with increasing recognition of equity problems in the way we require development to pay to mitigate impacts of growth. He identified another problem area as local government funding. Some local jurisdictions don’t take advantage of local option gasoline taxes, impact fees, etc. There are problems related to the shift of responsibility to local governments, and lots of technical implementation issues, plus policy questions on land use implications. We want cities to be cities, yet are regulations encouraging sprawl? There is a need to ask “What is transportation concurrency doing to our cities?” He recognized the importance of the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and the problems of trying to require or restore concurrency in urban areas and in small communities served by SIS facilities. He projected bigger legislative changes are coming in the next legislative session, and suggested that considering density minimums versus maximums for urban areas may be an approach that will be considered. He asked “Should there be a state mobility fee directed to important state facilities?” and stated that pressure is building around the state to change the way concurrency and growth management are being implemented.

Wayne Tedder provided a local perspective on development trends and his perspective on how concurrency has promoted sprawl.

Robert Downie posed the questions “What is transportation concurrency, Can we measure differently, and should we redefine what constitutes a ‘good’ LOS?” He stated his perception that FDOT has had a hard time implementing SB 360, and indicated that developers want to pay and go.

John Weiss pointed out that developers thought the changes mandated “pay and go,” but there is a Capital Improvement Element commitment for local government and FDOT regarding the “rest” of the funds needed. The challenge is developing a plan and having it in place before developers come in.

Cliff Tate expressed his belief that concurrency is not working as originally planned over 20 years ago. It assumed we could build our way out of problems. Various tools TCEAS, etc. allow for implementation over time.

David Littlejohn asked “If it isn’t working, how do we fix it?”

Charles answered we can work toward higher density and smarter land use, but rezoning is difficult, and builders often want to build something different. He again suggested part of the answer could be minimum densities/intensities versus maximum. Part of problem is self-correcting in that too much traffic discourages sprawl. He noted that demographics are changing (example: households with fewer children), which could change future growth patterns and market demands that influence growth.

Sprawl was identified as a big problem--we need to discourage sprawl.

John Weiss stated that concurrency isn’t new, and suggested the state needs to educate local governments on processes and what works.

Wayne Tedder stated that development has not been required to pay its fair share--If everyone pays, communities can grow as planned.

Cliff Tate said if you are measuring capacity, the only solution is to add capacity. We need new ways to measure. Land use is more flexible. “Identify the transportation system you want, let land uses change to provide a transportation system a community can afford.”

Wayne Tedeer commented that “regional impacts must be assessed -- other communities impact our roads. Congestion management does not work if no alternate mode is available.” He stated the perspective that congestion is not good and has negative environmental impacts. “The state needs to focus less on small scale developments inside urban service area.”

John Weiss commented that concurrency is a local government responsibility. It is Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and local governments that prioritize local capacity dollars.

It was pointed out that FDOT District Five has had success in implementing concurrency.

John Weiss stated that each district operates somewhat differently and independently. Each must work with local governments to prioritize projects and find funding. Ensuring consistency between the way Development of Regional Impact (DRI) projects and sub-DRI projects are treated is important.

Robert Downie commented that compromise helps define success, and that developer contributions are only part of the way to success.

Charles Gauthier indicated that HB 7203 (adopted in 2007) opens additional opportunities for Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas (TCEAs). Gainesville is an example. Amending future land use maps of urban service areas is easier within urban service areas. “Airports are now exempt from transportation concurrency.” The proportionate fair share formula was changed to prohibit developers being charged to eliminate backlog. The program is supposed to ensure proportionality of impact and charges. The definition of financial feasibility was clarified.

Robert Downie gave examples of new issues, such as “backlog -- what is the definition?” He indicated that some planners are not sure developers were previously being charged for backlog. Developers are recalculating; if they don’t pay, who will? Harmonizing vocabulary is important.

John Weiss stated that local governments need to put the new DRI traffic into their Concurrency Management Systems (CMSs).

David Littlejohn pointed to the fiscal challenges for local government, with budget reductions and less money for infrastructure and services.

Wayne Tedder said capital improvements are among first things to be cut.

John Weiss reiterated that partnerships are important. The MPO process will need to evolve. Local govts will need to be partners. Correctly calculated impact fees would enable achievement of concurrency. Not fully mitigating impacts (not charging a full fair share) has been part of the problem.

The DCA expects to release updated best practices guides later this year.

___________________________________________

Documents provided in PDF format must be viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader which is available from Adobe at no charge. Viewers can also convert PDF files to HTML format through the Adobe Web site. (A new browser window will be opened when you access these external links)