Discussion Group Leader:
Ms. Maggy Hurchalla
Discussion Group Recorders:
Mr. Jack Osterholt
Mr. Chris Shoemaker
1. Rep. Patricia Bailey
2. Ms. Nikki Clayton
Dr. John DeGrove
Mr. Robert Donly
Mr. Earnest Elliott
Mr. Tom Fair
Ms. Corrine Freeman
Ms. Sandra S. Glenn
Mr. Porter Goss
Mr. Al Hadeed
Ms. Bonnie Hamm
Mrs. Helen Hood
Ms. Maggy Hurchalla
Rep. C. Fred Jones
Rep. Ray Liberti
Senator Frank Mann
Mr. Edward Platt
Mr. Ron Rotella
Mr. Sam Shannon
Mr. Anthony Shoemaker
Ms. Susan Shulman
Rep. Art Simon
Mr. Ed Swift
Mr. Jim Wolf
Mr. Terry Wood
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING ACT: THE ISSUES
By Ms. Dana D. Minerva
As of November 30, 1982, 355 municipalities had adopted
plans pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act
(LGCPA) or were covered by county plans. Sixty-six counties had
also adopted plans, leaving one county and thirty-seven
municipalities which had not adopted plans. Now that most local
governments have adopted their plans, interest has shifted from
plan adoption to the quality of the comprehensive plans, their
implementation and their evolution. Important questions, such as
"Are the plans adopted pursuant to the LGCPA of the quality
needed to manage growth"; "how can they be effectively
implemented"; and "how can they be amended to reflect changed
conditions without altering their comprehensive, long term
nature?" should be answered.
THE QUALITY OF LGCPA PLANS
Many of the plans prepared by local governments pursuant
to the LGCPA are excellent. The Department of Community Affairs
cites the plans of St. Petersburg, Coral Springs, Wauchula,
Longboat Key, Winter Park, Boca Raton, and Hendry County as some
of the best. The staff of the Department of Community Affairs,
however, has concluded that "the overall quality of much of the
planning accomplished since 1975 has been below the level
required to guide and control future development." Another
observer has stated: "Plans vary in their degree of specificity.
Some are very general, using vague and imprecise language which
can support contrary actions and does little to bind local
decision makers. Land use maps may be absent or broadly drawn
and colored without detail. Plans such as these are designed to
maintain a high degree of flexibility and avoid reducing the
discretion of elected officials."
Another commentator has stated of the LGCPA planning
process: "First, the substance of plans is not controlled. A
local government can go through the requisite procedural motions
of planning and never alter the existing pattern of development.
Many have done so....The LGCPA provides no method, other than
persuasion, for the state to ensure that good planning takes
If some local governments have failed to plan well for
growth, and some observers believe this is true, state government
must bear some of the blame. The ELMS I Committee recommended a
state expenditure of $50 million to help pay for the local plans
required by the LGCPA and strongly stated that the Act should not
become effective unless "proper funding for local planning
assistance is provided." There were, however, no state
appropriations for LGCPA plans until 1977. Since 1975, a total
of only $4,943,675 in state and federal money has been available
to assist with the preparation of the 459 local government plans
required by the Act.
Technical assistance from the state level for the
preparation and implementation of local plans has also been
sparse. The Department of Community Affairs has only one
employee to administer the LGCPA at the state level. This
employee is responsible for reviewing all of the local
comprehensive plans and providing technical assistance with the
preparation and implementation of plans to local governments who
request it. One employee is clearly inadequate.
Further, the Department of Community Affairs needs the
resources with which to provide a data base on which local plans
can be based. Another persisting problem is the fact that the
state and the regional planning councils have not developed state
and regional plans to serve as the basis for review of local
plans and to help guide local governments in the development of
Currently, the LGCPA applies to all local governments, no
matter what their size or characteristics. Some observers have
suggested that it may be more appropriate to exclude very small
municipalities because they do not have the resources or
professional sophistication necessary to adopt and implement a
comprehensive plan. Rather than force these very small
municipalities to comply halfheartedly with the Act it may be
more appropriate to exempt them.
Some other suggestions that have been made for improving
the quality of LGCPA plans include requiring the plans to include
land use maps and requiring plans to include definitions of land
use classifications, such as "low density" or "light industry."
Such improvements would give local plans more specificity.
While these suggestions focus on the form that the
required plan is to take, other recommendations have related to
the content of the plans. The staff of the second Environmental
Land Management Study Committee (ELMS II) has suggested that
counties and municipalities jointly be required to identify an
area of developable land to be designated as a future urban
service area, with local land use regulations and future capital
improvements required to be consistent with this designation.
The Department of Community Affairs has suggested that it have
some power to approve or disapprove plans based on the quality of
the plans. Others have suggested that there be additional
required elements. The additional elements most often suggested
include agricultural land preservation elements, capital
improvement plans, and hurricane evacuation elements for coastal
counties. Another suggestion often made is that the Act be
amended so that the utility elements are no longer required.
There is no doubt that the Legislature intended that local
government comprehensive plans promulgated pursuant to the LGCPA
have the force of law and be a sort of "constitution" which
guides local government land use regulation. The language of the
LGCPA is quite specific:
"After a comprehensive plan or element
or portion thereof has been adopted in
conformity with this act, all
development undertaken by, and all
actions taken in regard to development
orders by, governmental agencies in
regard to land covered by such plan or
element shall be consistent with such
plan or element as adopted. All land
development regulations enacted or
amended shall be consistent with the
adopted comprehensive plan or element
or portion thereof."
The Act does not define the term "consistent"--presumably
it takes on its ordinary meaning. Some confusion about whether
certain development or land use regulations are consistent with
comprehensive plans has arisen when the plans do not specifically
permit or prohibit certain kinds of development or land use
Some local governments have tried to avoid the clear
legislative mandate that local plans control land use and
development by adopting their plans by resolution rather than
ordinance. A plan adopted by resolution, they argue, does not
have the full force and effect that an ordinance does and
therefore is advisory only. The suggestion has been made that
the Act be clarified to insure the adoption of plans by
While the LGCPA states that proposed land use regulations
must be reviewed to ensure their consistency with the plan, the
Act does not establish any specific procedure for review of
existing land use regulations or any deadline by which the local
governments must amend their existing land use regulations to
conform them to their plan. As a result, many land use
regulations still contain inconsistencies with the LGCPA plans,
some of which have been adopted as recently as July 1, 1981.
Individual development orders (decisions on such things as
building permits, zoning permits, subdivision approvals,
variances, etc.) are not specifically required to be reviewed by
the local land planning agency for consistency with the plan, as
are proposed land use regulations, even though the LGCPA requires
that they be consistent. Some observers have suggested that the
Act should require some formalized procedure for such a review.
Unfortunately, the LGCPA is not specific about what is to
happen if a land use regulation or permit is not consistent with
the local comprehensive plan. The Act makes reference to
judicial review of local government actions or development
"A court may consider, among
other things, the reasonableness of
the comprehensive plan or element or
elements thereof relating to the issue
justiciably raised or the
appropriateness and completeness of
the comprehensive plan or element or
elements thereof in relation to the
governmental action or development
regulation under consideration. The
court may consider the relationship of
the comprehensive plan or element or
elements thereof to the governmental
action taken or the development
regulation involved in litigation, but
private property shall not be taken
without due process of law and the
payment of just compensation."
The implication of this statement is that the legislature
contemplated that disputes over whether a particular development
order or regulation is consistent would be settled in the courts.
The LGCPA does not, however, provide much clue as to who
is to have "standing" to bring a judicial action to require that
development orders or regulations be consistent with the plans.
While the Legislature probably intended that members of the
public in general be allowed to do so, since the Act was intended
to protect the public in general, it is not absolutely certain
and should be clarified.
Traditionally, courts have granted "standing" (or the
right to bring a lawsuit) in land use matters to only those
plaintiffs who could show that they had or would incur "special
injuries"; that is, injuries that are different in degree and
kind from those that members of the public in general would
suffer. Any citizen can, however, challenge a land use
regulation or decision which is a departure from "any essential
procedure proceeding its enactment," i.e., is unconstitutional or
was decided without adequate notice.
The issue of what rule of law will be applied when
determining whether the public in general has the right to
challenge a rezoning that is inconsistent with the local land use
plan is an issue that is now before the Florida Supreme Court.
If the court decides that persons challenging inconsistent
governmental actions must be able to show special injury, this
will severely limit the number of citizens who will have standing
to invoke the power of the courts. This is significant since
there is no other mechanism in the LGCPA for requiring local
governments to comply with the LGCPA mandate that land use
regulations and decisions be consistent with their own
comprehensive plan. The very persons the LGCPA was intended to
protect from arbitrary land use decisions and unplanned
development, members of the general public, would be powerless to
seek judicial enforcement of the law.
There are a number of alternatives which the Legislature
might consider in order to provide some way in which local
governments could be held accountable. First, should the Supreme
Court rule that under current law citizens do not have standing
to enforce the LGCPA's mandates, the Legislature may wish to
legislatively grant standing to citizens to bring such actions.
Another alternative would be to empower the Attorney General to
enforce the LGCPA or to authorize a public counsel, similar to
Florida's Public Counsel in utility matters, to represent the
public in LGCPA enforcement matters.
Recently, planners have begun to recognize capital
improvements programming as one of the most effective growth
management tools available to local governments. Capital
improvements programming, in short, involves controlling the
development of land by controlling the times at which capital
improvements such as roads and sewer and water mains are provided
by the local government. Capital improvements programming also
insures that development will not occur until the requisite
infrastructure is available and helps to limit sprawl. Some
observers have recommended that the state require capital
improvements programming as an implementation tool for local
Another issue relating to plan implementation is the issue
of state agency compliance with local comprehensive plans. The
statute says that development undertaken by, development orders
approved by, or development regulations promulgated by
governmental agencies (which includes state agencies) must be
consistent with the appropriate local government comprehensive
plan. There are, however, many state activities which do not
constitute development, development orders, or development
regulations as defined by the Act and therefore are not now
required to be consistent with local plans. The one state
activity most frequently cited is the granting or extension of
service boundaries for water and sewer companies by the Public
Service Commission. It may be desirable to insure by law that
these service boundaries and franchises are consistent with local
THE PLAN AS A CONTINUALLY EVOLVING DOCUMENT
It may be desirable to make some changes in the procedures
required for the amendment of plans. Currently the Act requires
the same notice and review procedures for a proposed amendment of
a plan as is required for the adoption of a plan, except when the
proposed amendment deals with the land use element and covers
less than five percent of the land area of the local government.
This is true even in cases where the amendment is purely
technical or non-substantive. It has been suggested that this
requirement is burdensome. On the other hand, it has been
suggested that the frequency and scope of substantive plan
amendments be limited, to preserve the comprehensive nature of
the plan and to insure that plans are not amended to meet the
exigencies of short-term situations.
In a recent circuit court case it was alleged that Alachua
County commissioners had amended their comprehensive plan's land
use map approximately 140 times since adoption of the plan in
1978 without any regard to whether the amendments were consistent
with the overall comprehensive plan. The complaint in this
particular case alleged that most of the amendments to the plan
were made simply to bring the plan into conformity with rezonings
requested by various landowners, rather than to improve or update
the plan in a comprehensive way.
Some aspects of the five year evaluation and appraisal
report are also troublesome. First, there is no administrative
mechanism for requiring local governments to prepare the five
year evaluation and appraisal report. Therefore, plans may
become outdated and impossible to implement. Also, the current
statute states that the effect of the adoption of an evaluation
and appraisal report is to amend the plan. The report, however,
may not be in a form that is an appropriate amendment to the
plan. Another problem is that while the local governments are
required to adopt or reject the evaluation and appraisal report,
it is not clear that the local government is required to amend
its plan to address the recommendations of an adopted report. It
has also been suggested that local governments be required to
include in the five year evaluation and appraisal report an
evaluation of the cumulative effects of all the plan amendments
adopted during the five year period.
COORDINATION OF PLANS AMONG DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
One of the major objectives of the LGCPA is coordination
among the plans of different levels of government. The LGCPA
requires the Department of Community Affairs, the regional
planning councils, and the counties to review and comment on
municipal comprehensive plans and major amendments to them. The
Department and the regional planning councils review county
comprehensive plans. While the comments resulting from these
reviews are made part of the record, the counties and
municipalities are not required to follow these comments. It has
been suggested that a requirement that local plans be consistent
with state and regional plans be made part of the LGCPA. It
would, however, be necessary for the state to develop a
comprehensive plan to guide its own activities before this
requirement could be implemented. Regional planning councils
are required by current statute to prepare regional policy plans
but most of them have not done so.
Better coordination among local plans may be needed as
well. Currently, the counties review municipal plans to see how
they relate to the counties' own plans, but have no power (unless
they have county charters which grant them the power) to require
that municipalities coordinate their plans. The Act requires
each local government to prepare an intergovernmental
coordination element "to be used in the accomplishment of
coordination of the adopted comprehensive plan" with the plans of
state, regional, and local governments. What happens if the
plans of one local government conflict with another local
government's plans or the plans of the region or state is not
addressed. One solution would be to establish a commission or
state agency as an arbiter to resolve inconsistencies between
local, regional, and state plans.
Originally, the LGCPA required that copies of each local
government's adopted plan had to be submitted to the state. This
requirement was legislatively removed by accident, according to
one LGCPA expert. It is extremely difficult for the Department
of Community Affairs to review plan amendments and five year
evaluation and appraisal reports if the Department does not have
a current copy of each local plan. Also, a potentially important
source of information on local government plans, useful to both
private industry and state government, is lost. The Act should
probably be amended to include this requirement again.
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
:y of Plans
* Provide better funding for local planning and more
Prepare state and regional plans to guide the
development of local plans.
Exempt municipalities with a population of less than
2500 from the requirements of the LGCPA.
Require local plans to include definitions of terms
and land use maps.
Grant the Department of Community Affairs the
authority to disapprove local plans with some form of
disincentive for plan disapproval.
Require local governments to prepare the following
-agricultural land preservation
-capital improvements plans
-hurricane evacuation plans (when appropriate)
Repeal the requirement that LGCPA plans include a
Require plan adoption by ordinance
Provide a specific procedure for local government
review of development orders to determine whether
they are consistent with the local plan
Clarify who is to have standing to challenge a
development order or regulation due to inconsistency
with the local plan: the public in general, the
attorney general, the Department of Community Affairs
and/or a new special counsel
Require local governments to engage in capital
Require state and regional agencies to follow local
plans when appropriate.
The Evolving Plan
Exempt purely technical and nonsubstantive plan
amendments from the current notice requirements of
Limit the number of plan amendments which can be made
Require evaluation of the cumulative effect of all
plan amendments in the five year evaluation and
Provide some disincentive for local government
failure to prepare the required five year evaluation
and appraisal report and make technical amendments to
the LGCPA to clarify the procedure for amending plans
as a result of the report.
Coordination of Plans
Develop state and regional plans and require, to the
extent appropriate, local plans to be consistent with
Provide a procedure for arbitrating inconsistency
between plans of various levels of government and
between different governments at the same level
Require local governments to keep current versions of
their plans on file with the Department of Community
Affairs and the regional planning agencies.
By Mr. Tom Lewis
A conference of this nature covering the subject on this agenda is
indeed timely timely because of the pressures of growth, and timely
because we are crossing the threshold of the next great cycle of
development in Florida. The first cycle came at the end of the Indian
wars. Soldiers mustered out and returned to build hoaes and farms in the
midst of Florida's plenty and promise. They followed Indian trails, army
roads, the rivers and streams.
The second cycle came with the industrial boom at the end of the civil
war. Entrepreneurs saw Florida as a resource ripe for market. A new
breed of pioneers such as Flagler and Plant pushed railroads down and
across the peninsula -- not to meet a need, but to create a demand to
sell the sun and the sea at rail's end and to open up Florida's fertile
farmlands. The mounting burden of unorchestrated growth is bringing down
the curtain on this cycle and laying the foundation of a new cycle of
development -- a cycle of concern and control, a cycle of management and
Heretofore, the emphasis was upon promotion and exploitation the
wholesaling of untapped and under used resources. In this emerging cycle,
the emphasis is upon protection and preservation. We seek to protect our
quality of life and to preserve the resources necessary to ensure a
prosperous future dividends for all citizens, not just profits for a
We cannot stop growth, but we an control it, direct it and manage
it. We can no more allow the developers to et the growth limits than we
can allow the motorists to set the speed limits. In this cycle, the
public good and the public investment nxst cast the majority vote on all
questions of growth management,. We nust seize the reins of growth to
guide it, control it and snoetimes constrain it, but always to manage it.
Our government was conceived to do those things for us that we cannot
do for ourselves. Managing growth is one of those things. We nust
involve all levels and all disciplines of government. We must develop a
workable and a supportable system of growth management that reaches from
every neighborhood into every public office -- a system that clearly
states what the public wants, what the people will tolerate and what they
absolutely will prohibit.
We can either control the future or be controlled by it. In keeping
with this philosophy, I submit the following three transportation issues
that can influence the future of our state.
ISSUE #1 PRO-ACTIVE vs REACTIVE
As a service of government, should the transportation system be a
mechanism to accommodate growth or a means to guide effective and
efficient growth? Should transportation facilities and services be
reactive to developmental and political pressures, or should they be
pro-active to fulfill and reinforce growth management objectives?
The current transportation system was designed and built in response
to the demands of growth -- largely unplanned and unmanaged growth. For
the most part, this system evolved from a philosophy and process of
"catch-up" to needs generated by a growth rate and pattern with no
particular, well conceived, specific direction. Growth management and a
pro-active approach to transportation planning are relatively new
considerations. Until World War II, transportation served an active
developmental role by promoting ocmuerce and growth. The southward and
westward expansion of the railroads and the draining, diking and paving of
Florida's swamplands are examples of transportation stimulating
development. The tidal wave of growth that followed World War II forced
transportation into a reactive role. Random and rapid development
demanded transportation air, sea and land. Development was the
master. Transportation was the servant. Transportation planning simply
filled out the outline dictated by growth. Both the pace and the path
were for the most part enunciated by development. Government at all
levels was hard pressed to address the transportation demands of growth.
The urban issues that emerged in the 1960's and the environmental concerns
that surfaced in the 1970's combined to signal the need for government to
become pro-active in the planning and placement of transportation systems.
Still, today, we find that we have a transportation system that was
designed and built to prnomte and accommodate growth and transportation
agencies that are still organized and staffed to plan, build and maintain
highways in response to development. We can't ignore the backlog of
transportation needs, but we will never catch up, and we will never
influence the type and direction of development unless we adopt a positive
pro-active approach to transportation planning. This approach demands a
bottom to top development of a statewide comprehensive land use plan with
appropriate top to bottom enforcement of its elements. It also requires
transportation agencies that can make the proper transportation
assessments, the proper modal assignments and that can properly plan,
design, develop, maintain and manage a balanced, unified and totally
integrated transportation system to support the adopted land use plan and
preserve the mobility essential to a dynamic economy.
This transition from reactive to pro-active transportation planning
1. Reorientation of transportation agencies from the present
production dominated organization structure to a management
oriented organization, while still providing the necessary
2. Tying transportation plans and improvements more closely to
land use and growth management policies at all levels;
3. Expanding the consideration and implementation of alternative
transportation modes, such as transit, high-speed rail,
ridesharing, bikeways, etc.;
4. Identification and designation of transportation corridors and
the promotion of advanced right-of-way acquisition, value
capture, incremental taxation and other creative techniques for
their use and development.
ISSUE #2 A NEW PLANNING LOGIC
What should be the logic upon which the state and local governments
prepare their transportation plans and work programs, and will that logic
facilitate proper growth management?
Transportation planning is a dynamic discipline which must continually
be reexamined to ensure that the guiding logic remains compatible with the
current and emerging needs of a dynamic state. Transportation systems are
expensive, and their cost will escalate with continued urbanization.
Proper funding for these systems is a perpetual problem for all levels of
government. Past planning logic has been to build whatever systems that
development demands and whatever mode the public will accept.
When we consider the fact that uncontrolled growth is threatening
environmentally sensitive areas, that there is not enough money to provide
the infrastructure that uncontrolled growth demands, that citizens are
demanding relief from both the costs and congestion of uncontrolled
growth, then we can see that a new planning logic is needed. We need a
planning logic that reflects local concerns, recognizes local authority,
responds to regional needs and reinforces state goals and policies. We
need a planning logic that establishes growth patterns, that puts the
people back in control of their destiny, that puts an end to
public-be-demand development and that fosters a working partnership
between public and private entities. We need a planning logic that not
only guides and manages growth, but also ensures that the public services
will be in place when and where they are needed and that these services
are the most cost efficient and effective that can be provided.
In transportation, this new planning logic would demand a state
transportation plan keyed to state goals and growth policies and which
supports a state sanctioned land use plan. It should be a plan that
properly evaluates each transportation mode and prescribes the most cost
effective mode. Urbanization and growth management will require sane
weaning away from private conveyance and on to public transit where growth
patterns and cost effectiveness require it.
Options to create a new planning logic which will effectively
integrate growth management policies include:
1. Broaden the view of transportation investments beyond
construction of facilities to include planning, developing
and managing interfacing multimodal facilities -- a blending
of the modes to provide an efficient interface between
waterways, railways, airways and highways. Multinodal
systems management is essential for maximum efficiency
of all systems;
2. Include private interests as partners in creative
techniques of transportation development and financing;
3. Expand the criteria for justifying new or expanded
transportation facilities. Congestion is the prevailing
justification. QGrwth management goals should be given
greater weight, and transportation management techniques
and modal alternatives should be utilized to reduce
4. Include specific economic development goals as part of
transportation improvement strategies and require
ccmprehensive economic impact statements on all major
5. Monitor the operation of transportation improvements to
analyze and evaluate their impacts on development patterns.
ISSUE #3 A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
When specific statewide and regional growth management policies are
established, can the present planning and transportation agencies respond
effectively? Will organizational changes be needed to make transportation
an effective tool of growth management?
Transportation planning responsibilities are scattered among agencies
at all levels of government. FDOT is responsible for a balanced
intermodal statewide system. Regional Planning Councils are responsible
for developing regional policy plans. Local governments are required to
develop local comprehensive plans. Based on Federal regulation and State
statutorial requirements, Florida has 21 Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. These 21 urbanized areas contain almost 75 percent of the
state's population. The MPOs set transportation priorities in their
respective areas and are required by law to conduct comprehensive,
cooperative and continuing transportation planning. FDOT provides
technical assistance and computer services and coordinates the transition
of MPO priorities into the FDOT work program. In the nonurbanized areas,
FDOT in cooperation with local government does what transportation
planning is done, mostly project planning.
While there is a cooperative sharing of these planning
responsibilities among the various agencies, the plans are still
reactive. There is no formal networking of transportation plans to
promote consistency, except between the MPOs and the FDOT work program.
For the most part the State, RPCs and local governments have done little
comprehensive transportation planning. It's an optional element in the
Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, it is not mandated. MPO
plans generally are area specific concentrating on the projects provided
by the Federal urban funds they control.
This fragmented and uncoordinated planning structure coupled with a
lack of statewide and regional policy and goals and fierce competition for
limited resources, can only carpound the problems of rapid and
unconstrained growth. There is a need for an expanded role to blend local
prerogatives with statewide policy and goals and to articulate needs
unique to the region.
Options available to improve the regional perspective in
transportation planning include:
1. Require a statewide comprehensive transportation plan
keyed to adopted growth management goals and policies.
2. Establish a transportation planning structure which
requires regional planning entities to develop regional
transportation policies, goals and objectives consistent
with the statewide comprehensive transportation plan and
which requires local governments to subscribe to regional
policies, goals and objectives in their local
3. Restructure MPOs in contiguous urbanized areas, to
create a single, unified regional MPO to address
inter-urban transportation problems.
4. Establish a MPO coordinating council in contiguous
urbanized areas with individual MPOs that are not all in the same
Regional Planning Council to provide regional consistency
in transportation systems serving all areas.
5. Where contiguous urbanized areas maintain individual
MPOs and are within the same RPC, structure that RPC with
the authority to ensure regional consistency.
6. Evaluate the overall planning framework and establish
a single entity to accomplish and ensure effective
regional planning. Do we really need both MPOs and RPCs?
7. Strengthen the statutes to mandate transportation elements
and land use maps in all comprehensive plans -- state,
regional and local. All transportation elements and land
use maps are to be consistent with state, regional and
local growth management policies, goals and objectives.
8. Do nothing ... keep our framework, our planning activities
at all levels of government at their current scale, current
capability, current focus and what will be the Florida of
If a single word were required to define Florida's future, it would be
"growth.-" Now the fourth most populous state, by the turn of the century,
Florida is expected to be number two. That is why the current cycle of
development must be a cycle of concern and control, of protection and
preservation. Transportation is a key element in guiding and managing
growth. The three issues raised are essential in developing the
transportation planning capacity and strategy to make statewide, regional
and local transportation systems effective tools to respond to the
challenge of change in Florida's future.
The Florida Department of Transportation and the whole transportation
planning process must be restructured to be pro-active rather than
reactive -- to guide growth father than be a slave to it. We need a new
planning logic to seize the reins of growth and to provide cost effective
and efficient transportation throughout the state. We need a regional
perspective that expands the role of regional planning councils and/or
welds contiguous MPOs together into a single entity to address the
transportation problems common to all areas and a strengthening of the law
to mandate transportation elements and land use plans and maps. We need
to accomplish this through a consensus of all levels of government -- a
cooperative effort with a camrnn goal to-maximize the return on
transportation investments, to minimize the impacts of future growth and
to preserve our joint mobility and quality of life.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
By Mr. Glenn W. Robertson
1. Will the Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) process be used more
frequently and systematically by State and local governments to
help manage growth and redevelopment challenges in Florida?
The Capital Improvement Planning process is a poten-
tially effective growth and revitalization management
tool for use by State and local officials and public
administrators. The question remains, however, as to
whether government has the desire or ability to use
this tool effectively.
2. Does Capital Improvement Planning and Programming conflict with
political realities and the free enterprise system?
This issue highlights the problems encountered when
a governmental body attempts to limit choices related
to the future development of a community.
3. Does Capital Improvement Planning and Programming make any sense
considering the magnitude of physical needs and the scarcity of
This issue represents another reality the paralyzing
effect of being overwhelmed by how much needs to be
done and how much money it would cost to do it.
Floridians participating in.a recent poll conducted by Florida
State University indicated a widespread concern about the effects
that future growth will have on their state.
We in Florida, the people of our nation and, indeed, the entire
world frequently hear and read about Florida's future. The projec-
tions for rapid population and business growth in our State are well
known. Many people see great opportunity associated with this
growth while others see the potential for disaster if we fail to
properly manage the physical, social, and economic problems that
will accompany this expected influx of people and commerce.
The beauty and desirability as well as the economic attributes
of Florida's coastline, for example, have attracted almost 80 per-
cent of all the people who live in Florida. This population settle-
ment pattern is expected to continue throughout the remainder of this
century. Trends such as this, however, translate into many develop-
ment and redevelopment challenges for State and local officials and
private sector interests.
Challenges will include the need to accommodate continually
expanding coastal urbanization, avoid unacceptable levels of traffic
congestion, limit the effects of potentially intense social pres-
sures, avoid water degradation and shortages, prevent the loss of
environmentally sensitive wet and dry lands and maintain community
quality through responsible planning, budgeting, and legislating.
The 1980's and 1990's will be years of massive change in Florida.
A public-private partnership and general agreement on how to deal
with development and redevelopment needs, however, can help Florida
maximize the positives and minimize the negatives.
The acceptance and use of growth management tools, for instance,
at all levels of government may well mean the difference between
maintaining much of Florida's quality of life and losing it. One
proven tool for not only constructively managing growth but also for
revitalizing communities is Capital Improvement Planning (CIP).
Three major issues associated with the decision to use the CIP tool
are discussed in this paper.
ITHE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER
The reader is asked to consider three issues related to capital
improvement planning. A set of options that respond to the oppor-
tunities and problems defined under each issue are presented for
consideration and discussion.
BACKGROUND ON ISSUES
ISSUE I: Will the Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) process be
used more frequently and systematically by State and local govern-
ments to help manage growth and redevelopment challenges in Florida?
Sub-issue IA: Can the capital improvement planning process and
products be used successfully to help manage a public/private
response to development and redevelopment pressures in Florida?
Florida can respond to growth pressures in two ways -
reactively or proactively. Planning for facilities and
other capital improvements related to growth and redevel-
opment needs have tended to be more reactive.
The Capital Improvement Plan is a means to an end, not an
end in itself. The Capital Improvement Plan is very much
like a governmental budget. The plan reflects decisions
on how to physically support the influx of people and
commerce into a geographically defined area.
The placement of roads and bridges, water and sewer lines,
solid waste facilities, hazardous waste dump sites, storm
drainage systems, parking garages, public utility facili-
ties, conservation and recreation areas, schools, prisons,
hospitals, airports, and governmental service centers has
an obvious influence on not only.how a community, region
or state looks, but also on the overall quality of life
available within those areas. A capital improvement pro-
gram (schedules and location coordinates) and budget
(funding commitments) put the CIP into effect.
The CIP can provide a sense of managerial leadership or
be a set of reactive decisions. How often does govern-
mental road building follow patterns of development
rather than guide it? Does government provide physical
incentives for development or redevelopment of areas that
will enhance rather than detract from overall community
quality of life? Undoubtedly, if there are no well
defined policies for growth management or revitalization
concerns, then a CIP will become a reactive, incrementally
To lead rather than follow, the CIP's identification of
where, how much, and when to place physical facilities
and developmental support systems should be the result
of public discussions and decisions on what type community
is desirable and realistically achievable considering
growth trends as well as current economic, social and
physical conditions. Assuming these front-end discus-
sions are held and decisions made, the CIP can be a pro-
active, growth and redevelopment guiding tool.
The most successful private sector interests clearly
define their expectations prior to developing their
operational and capital improvement plans and budgets.
Future adjustments are then made due to changing condi-
tions or circumstances. Disney, IBM, Sony and Toyota
are just four companies that have successfully assessed
their futures on the front end and supported their visions
with strategically sound operating and capital improvement
plans. These corporations are proactive and profitable.
If they ever find themselves in a reactive posture, as a
follower and not a leader, there is great likelihood that
profits will fall dramatically. In the case of cities,
counties, regions, and states, quality of life can suffer
when governments plan and budget insufficiently or poorly.
The Capital Improvement Plan can allow government to stay
ahead of the competitive pressures of growth and the
effects of potential blight and deterioration.
Sub-issue IB: Can governments coordinate their efforts well
enough to successfully prepare an out-front management
oriented Capital Improvement Plan?
The professional effort to develop an effective capital
improvement plan requires a level of coordination and
integration that is not easy to achieve. The recommen-
dations regarding where to place different types of roads,
for instance, undoubtedly influence development patterns.
and community, regional and state social and economic
characteristics. The issue is whether public officials
and administrators will consider these influences prior
to making decisions on road construction.
The construction and placement of sewer lines can affect
water quality as well as general health conditions, land
values and patterns of development. Placement of desir-
able public facilities such as schools, libraries, health
centers and park and recreational areas can influence
development or redevelopment potential as well as provide
a higher quality social environment. University improve-
ments relate not only to individual opportunities and
social progress but also to economic development potential.
Planners, governmental operating departments, regional and
state agencies and private sector interests need to coordi-
nate their capital improvement decision-making responsi-
bilities. Within government, road planners should work
with social service and land use planners as well as eco-
nomic development analysts. Downtown redevelopers should
coordinate their capital improvement recommendations to
public officials with road, water and sewer, environmental,
housing and social service planners and operating agencies.
Private and public sector decision-makers need to work
together to protect the interests of all, including the
general public's concern for orderly growth and avoidance
of blight and deterioration. Additionally, government
agencies that plan capital improvements should not only
be aware of demographic, economic and social trends and
area goals, but also should make sure operational plan-
ning efforts are coordinated with capital planning. The
capital planners, for example, may be recommending more
institutional facilities for growing numbers of retarded
children at the same time the operational planners are
trying to transfer the children out of institutions into
Capital Improvement Plans can be the result of a systematic
process designed to result in well-coordinated actions that
improve the area's economy, social stability and physical
beauty and also maintain land, water and air quality. In
too many instances, however, the CIPs that are prepared by
cities, counties, regions and State government are uncoordi-
nated, non-strategic and reactive. Roads are planned and
constructed separate from decisions related to the place-
ment of schools and other facilities, housing needs, and
environmental protection plans.
Governments can do effective Capital Improvement Planning.
Determined leadership from public officials, public adminis-
trators, and concerned private interests, however, is
necessary, to force the coordination needed to develop CIPs
in a way that will help manage an area's development and
ISSUE 2: Does Capital Improvement Planning and Programming con-
flict with political realities and the free enterprise system?
Philosophically, many people would probably agree that taking a
disciplined approach to planning and then acting on an area's
future capital improvement needs is preferable to experiencing
haphazard, uncoordinated and unmanaged growth or deterioration
due to lack of planning. The gap between philosophical agree-
ment and the reality of human nature, however, can be enormous.
When theory becomes reality, barriers to using professionally
acceptable principles for capital planning test the resolve of
even the most determined planner, manager, or public official.
Many people believe in the need to have plans for others, but
at the same time they wish to retain maximum flexibility for
Public administrators recognize the difficulty involved in
advocating the creation of a convincing public plan that would
limit political flexibility or choices under a free enterprise
system. The political environment offers many challenges to
professionals and officials who wish to identify future trends,
set goals, develop a plan of action, and set policy guidelines
that would limit most future budget, zoning or other public
decisions to those that are in conformance with goals, plans
Each group involved in a more systematic approach to planning
for both capital and operating needs will be conscious of its
own special inter@ets. Additionally, it is not easy for pro-
fessionals to develop a plan that is politically sensitive at
the same time it effectively manages growth or deterioration.
The most successful private sector corporations can attest to
the need for carefully developed and consistently used plans,
policies and budgets. If a corporation's future was at the
mercy of constant changes in planning, policy and budgetary
decisions whether in capital or operating areas, their future
profit picture would be in jeopardy.
Successful sporting teams are usually those that systematically
plan and execute. The most popular tourist attractions are
those that are obviously well planned and administered. The
market place is usually unforgiving of poorly planned and
Capital Improvement plans and programs for State or local govern-
ments are vital to serious desires to manage growth to optimize
the positives and minimize the negatives. Those who wish to
maintain maximum political and private interest flexibility at
the expense of an orderly, yet practical and well coordinated
planning and budgeting effort may find the consequences to be
unacceptable levels of congestion, social pressures and loss
of quality. Flexibility to change directions is essential, but
only when improvements are possible or short-term problems must
be accommodated for the good of the overall community or area.
The development of a sensible, realistic Capital Improvement
Plan and budget can resolve political uncertainties and provide
private interests with the information they need to carefully
plan and implement their business strategies. Well planned
communities and states sell well, are a source of pride to resi-
dents, and undoubtedly are attractive to business interests and
investors. Florida can avoid many of the serious problems
experienced by older areas of the United States that grew quickly
in the past without planning and now must try to overcome the
ISSUE 3: Does Capital Improvement Planning and Programming make
any sense considering the magnitude of physical needs and the
scarcity of dollars?
A carefully developed CIP not only identifies the present and
future physical needs of a jurisdiction but also presents a
strategy to use in responding to them. The magnitude of capital
improvement needs combined with a continued shortage of funds,
however, is an easy excuse for those who do not wish to plan.
This situation becomes the rationale used to convince people
that the situation is unmanageable. This approach, however,
forces near-sighted decisions that may solve short-term problems
but will likely cause longer term crises.
The bigger the problem, the more important the need to define
goals, set policies, develop plans, and make consistently
supportive budget and other legislative decisions. The magni-
tude of IMB's problems in the early 1970's, for example, was
great. The corporation did not respond with "there's no need
to plan our future or better relate our financial decisions to
a carefully designed corporate strategy." Just the opposite
happened. A commitment to systematic, strategic planning and
budgeting renewed their strength and market dominance.
A city, county, special district or state government is manage-
able. Visions for future physical, social and economic qualities
can be defined. Goals and policies can be established. Plans
and programs and budgets can be directly related to well-defined
goals and policies and can be consistently supported. The key is
whether we can convince ourselves to take a more strategic,
systematic approach to capital improvement planning than that
which we have done in the past.
The public expects their government to spend their tax dollars
in a sensible way that supports their immediate needs and pro-
tects the quality of life they enjoy. The need to plan should
be most important to people who believe in wise expenditure of
public funds. The lack of capital improvement planning and
budgeting coordination certainly does not save tax dollars. The
lack of capital improvement planning certainly can result in
expensive problems for both the public and private sectors.
True, the capital improvement needs are great. The public funds
are scarce. The private sector is not able to carry the whole
burden. This situation indicates a need to coordinate efforts,
make hard political decisions and develop plans and budgets that
can help manage and support growth and also revitalize deteri-
orated areas in Florida. The alternative is becoming more and
more unacceptable to Floridians.
OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO ISSUE OPPORTUNITIES AND PROBLEMS
The following options respond to the positive and negative con-
siderations expressed in the three main capital improvement plan-
ning issues. Options related to Capital Improvement planning and
budgeting do not provide choices as to whether Capital Improvement
Plans are done but as to how well governments decide to do them.
At every level of government, capital improvements will be done
but the quality of the decision-making process will differ widely.
ISSUE I: Will the Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) process be
used more frequently and systematically by State and local govern-
ments to help manage growth and redevelopment challenges in Florida?
|Option 1: The CIP as a Proactive as well as Capital Maintenance
of Effort Oriented Tool
The Government that desires a proactive, management oriented
Capital Improvement Plan and Budget would accomplish the follow-
(1) Public officials sponsor an effort to review current
conditions and the trends and projections that will shape
their future city, county, region or state. Likely sce-
narios are developed to indicate what their area will be
like in 5-10-20 years without major deviation from current
efforts and strategies to manage the situation. Economic,
social, physical and environmental likelihood should be
(2) The public officials would then be advised on alterna-
tive scenarios that would be possible and desirable based
on changes in current strategies and efforts. Upon review
and public discussion of no change and change oriented
scenarios, the public officials would decide on which
scenario is most desirable yet politically and profes-
sionally practical. This decision would be translated
into well-defined goals for the jurisdiction.
(3) The manager would review current capital improvement
plans from the perspective of how they support or detract
from the stated goals. The improvement plans would be
considered based on cross-programmatic influences (e.g.,
road placement implications for social, environmental or
other physical goals).
If no capital improvement plans exist, efforts would
begin to develop them.
(4) Zoning regulations and operating agency plans (e.g.,
public works, recreation, health, social service,
commerce) would be reviewed related to their influence
on or by capital improvement planning and the stated
goals and policies.
(5) Major private sector planning for the area should be in-
corporated into CIP planning process as best possible -
to judge effects and determine the types of incentives
or disincentives needed to provide goal oriented
development or redevelopment.
(6) A central unit would coordinate the final CIP development
to assure its direct relationship to needs, goals, poli-
cies, and related operational plans that jointly with
capital improvements affect the quantity and quality of
present and future community life.
(7) Executive developed Capital Improvement Plans and imple-
mentation budgets should be reviewed by the legislative
body for consistency with and conformance to legislative
policy as defined in statutes, ordinances, goals or other
(8) The final Capital Improvement Plan and Budget becomes the
official guiding document for public sector commitments
to supporting development and redevelopment legislatively
defined goals and policies. The CIP becomes proactive
and allows the community, region, or State to manage and
coordinate its operating and capital programs in partner-
ship with public concerns, private sector interests and
Option 2: The CIP as a Capital Maintenance of Effort and Limited
(1) Individual agencies develop a sense of need based more on
past patterns rather than future management oriented con-
siderations. They then prepare' recommendations for fund-
ing capital improvements in their specific areas of
responsibility. Very little cross departmental or cross
programmatic discussions on influences that may be impor-
tant (e.g., road effects on community social patterns)
(2) A central unit reviews the proposals for conformity to
budget instructions (e.g., a budget office) or comprehen-
sive plans (that often are not proactive, either) as in
the case of county planning commissions.
(3) Capital Improvement Plans are often 5-year programs, most
of which are considered serious proposals for only one
year with out-years being determined based on inflationary
cost factors being added to first year projects or pro-
jects are identified that respond to past or present, not
anticipated future pressures (the concern being that all
these views need to be considered).
(4) Some times, the separate CIP document causes the govern-
ment to not relate capital and operating decisions properly.
The one undoubtedly affects the other and must be reviewed
jointly if both are to be effective for development and
(5) The final CIP is a definite step beyond not having such
a document but it is still an incremental, executive
document that is not based on a sense of legislative goals
for the area, is not coordinated to act as a systematic
incentive for planned development and is not as useful as
it should be for intergovernmental and private sector
option 31: The CIP is a Maintenance of Effort and Usually Reactive
(1) Separate governmental agencies assess needs in their areas
of responsibility and develop independent CIPs which pro-
ceed directly to the chief administrator and legislative
body with little coordination across departments or pro-
grams. There is no central CIP development to avoid in-
consistencies and promote effective planning and budgeting.
(2) A central office (e.g., Budget Office) may prepare a plan
and budget for government buildings needed, but not re-
late the needs to operating/program decisions in agencies.
Option 41: The CIP is a Reactive and very limited Maintenance of
(1) The government officials and administrators do not high-
light nor discuss very often the capital improvement needs.
(2) Capital improvement budgeting is done within each agency
and may be indistinguishable from general operating ex-
pense needs. The improvements are buried in vague line
items in the budget.
ISSUE 2: Does Capital Improvement Planning and Programming con-
flict with political realities and the free enterprise system?
The basic options to this issue assume decisions by public offi-
cials either provide firm guidelines for capital improvement
planning and budgeting or not.
[Option 1: Assume that rapid growth pressures and the need to
maintain or revitalize community, regional or State
conditions require making firm political decisions
that publicly guide capital improvement planning and
(1) Based on a good sense of the present and probable
future conditions of State or substate areas, public
officials agree to establish firm goals and guidelines
(e.g., statutes, ordinances, legally constituted plans,
rules) for their area's growth and maintenance or re-
vitalization concerns. The goals and guidelines need
to be the result of public discussion and a commitment
to certain strategies that will drive land use, operat-
ing and capital improvement decision-making that act as
incentives for quality as well as quantity community,
regional and state development.
(2) A public and private partnership is vital to the success
of this option. Most parties that influence whether an
area's growth is managed well, where both public and
private interests are protected, must understand the
trade-offs between having firm guidelines and having
exceptionally flexible ones. Developers and other busi-
ness interests as well as the general public must be in-
volved in decisions related to the future of the community,
region or State. The public sector can provide dependable
support for positive development yet retain the right to
guide its location and pace to avoid unacceptably negative
community or State conditions.
(3) Public administrators need to provide the support neces-
sary for public officials to develop the firm guidelines
that will influence an area's future. Objective, accurate
demographic, economic, physical and social data or present
and future conditions must be presented to officials and
others in a public forum. Alternatives need to be defined
and the implication of the alternatives on needed capital
improvement support must be highlighted. A decision-making
process that will successfully result in conclusions must
be provided to officials. The conclusions must be trans-
lated then into supportive governmental capital and oper-
ating plans and budgets. As these plans and budgets are
presented to the officials, administrators need to refer
to their consistency with the official goals and guide-
lines. There also needs to be constructive relationships
between public and private professionals to implement
strategies in support of the official goals and guidelines
in as mutually acceptable manner as possible.
(4) There must be a centrally developed Capital Improvement
Plan and Budget which gives assurances to the officials
that individual agency recommendations have been coordi-
nated with other agency programs that influence or are
influenced by their actions. This coordination will
support the joint/cross-programmatic effort needed to
effectively use public resources to promote official goals
and respond well to official guidelines.
(1) Avoid the political concerns associated with being too
definitive on future decisions and maintain maximum flexi-
bility for both public and private interests by not estab-
lishing legally based goals, plans and strategies for
growth management or redevelopment.
(2) Public administrators assume the responsibility to define
present and future needs and present capital improvement
and operating recommendations based on their best judgment.
(3) Capital Improvement plans and budgets are presented to
officials as part of the overall budgetary process with
little discussion on future implications.
(1) A combination of Option 1 and 2 is possible.
ISSUE III: Does Capital Improvement Planning and Programming make
any sense considering the magnitude of physical needs and the
scarcity of dollars?
The options available to respond to issue three basically either
support aggressive definition of needs and priorities or support
passive efforts to accommodate capital improvement concerns.
[Option j: Aggressive Strategy
(1) Officials and chief administrators do not accept the
argument that the magnitude of needs and the scarcity
of funds makes capital improvement planning unnecessary.
(2) Direction is given to staff to develop overviews and
strategies that will allow managers and officials to
place a sense of priority to capital improvement decisions
that support official goals and guidelines (if available).
(3) Planning and budget priorities are then established that
most efficiently use available public funds in support
of desired outcomes for the community, region or state.
(4) The established sense of priorities also give impetus to
creative thinking on how private and public sectors can
work to accommodate more of the need than that which is
possible only with available public funds (e.g., how to
leverage funds, agree to trade-off efforts in other areas
of the budget, design joint private-public agreements).
lOption 2: More Passive Strategy
(1) Officials and chief administrators accept the argument
that the magnitude of need and scarcity of dollars makes
more formal planning and priority-setting unnecessary.
(2) Agencies and operating units continue to submit lists
with their sense of priority defined and await final
capital improvement budgetary decisions.
The Capital Improvement Planning process provides the public
and private sectors with a potentially effective tool for managing
development and redevelopment pressures that will continue to face
Florida over the next 20 years at least. The question is not just
whether governments will prepare CIPs but whether the process they
use will allow the CIPs a chance to be effective.
The discipline, expertise and support needed to do quality,
proactive capital improvement planning and budgeting is a major
challenge for most governments. The challenge, however, means a
lot to future Florida.
THE FLORIDA STORY
19q0-19o : DfMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRENDS
------1- MIGATIn OF e W KSIDENTS I YSARE POl+ 2 I
3z fl~lIoA-.9S InIjIf5 90 % of Florida's population 6 m',il, n
growth z peopIlefromr O+er Stztes
7 a 9 JqqO:12.3 "
_ta.e ait) Oto
44h rges. o' MA
6ecqrapI~,c Locataon.: 1teo -aqqo
1.78'?. 0 Fon ~rda'J qto~aJ wall hape SA.AS
Coasto.l Coun 'e-s
s.8% 6/ of alt Floradiaabs wall reside an Co'ista Counties \
;. The far+est gtot3mn saau Countris (see. *)
4. B8j l9O, 58% 0fau. Citi~enS wall liveli Ba, te.xr I .,.,
a. There wall be an 84% increase rn pesrons
I.. Ptpl o.e 65 to 74 will 3row byj 38 V. (see'* for counries~
1. wd4cl ftstest Srawth) C
DCONOGCRA REHI DS TP.
Ernloirvaent Fadet rowit i bs ai3'sess Scptor la8O 1980c199
1.7 8ercoes Sectr (MescdO, AttracZaWsi hotelseAc.) in..
A, 78d1e Sof&t loiit l r eside hoins.lf)...... t countio es
34~i~nance qd teat Esta. Se.tor...........n.
44 Ianufletur;ng Sedbr.................+52 %
3. The fasrst 3rowinq sinait co u tte tt i Is (
Aqjsnq_ e1" :1180J19
1. Pco.t. aee 65Bo 7 4q will 3r jb q 381% (Scl I IfMrGRAT1O, J
Emelo~qmen Imes eedthemn e popuifForeigA borS cetodri9f0 14
1. &rio.s1. V;elai currtt Wall need Sc be troer (?ct FecdgAWc l twtellateoJ fr6%
64 ofuohlt sopuldij cto
1.V. behu4ecn4 1990anS 14-4
Sn. ~aaa -. -...- 'a-..- aa
i i + ~ ~ TOUkIST5,t4EW ~E~IDENT5 ~ BUSI MESSES
j i I I I I I TOURIST S, NEW leF51DENTS i. BUSINE SSE S
-THE RZUSH TO FLOKIDA-
CAPITAL IH[ROA1Y[SI4[[T Z I
PLMNIN6 BUDGETiNG E$D
What rrocessW'l WelUset To Do It ? Cate4ie6.kA
'HE AN-5'$R5 THE OuETsioeS 9
I J 1J Will we assess CUrr-n*t cCO06ic socia and. ph&oJ3c&L C6AcatirGAT 1514e PARKS
YES NO trends aci ln make. projections 4xbout i-he futum of partcuiar aNvs or *he Sta~k Court C. it
(4* :* tii Lut discuss Atnea-n&iuC -FutureS Ln& COnsi der the clantes Lhat would be SrOwM.
Aoeece& to mtL1tEe LCc 1 t~'rSEMS
DRA L M A&C
o i l, W e .Z r acct i el c d e c id t w h xt t np c o f co m enu nie I.,re y io n QAd S t air k w e WaGn t t o W e i n, S YS TE M S
Cna isoI ate wh L t yp t of oppoet ai t fies wje wa n &ua, a le. to our eitJ3e 5 "VAd businessEs a
M *oItaiLL we. cLccrmine, +Vie_ capital ImprodJmeQbt- thakt will be flcessa.l to re&aj3e our Ivl vi Ayd7(
expectztion's *S twlel tC. the 3oJea-nM.AkjLL P"amar v0 SirttS Whil )6e. Ale edf 1 4's J
III: Li iinond Roct~ ~ti-f Itt'LaeSW CA h~ tO ST4Ai ~ccnod&4e STE ; LOCAL
projectLlay owi *id L1 e4 ro#%L to +e tj Ia of our p mseo t Capit a ingjes+, ~Jr its wellAs R O A D S
i e Pct to ltke- se4 Lonkr terMoos oCf needed. epem es T
1Wil. we pre?-~Ps wll-ooudinakted. ptPAs to 0per? tak a..Li3e- our str-aAegueS 4&AL pr-ouldt p
6% ICiiiL %iielidoe-it to A~nuvLL Aid Longer -berm capitatl. mpro-itinent clatisions at
F 7 L aLt jO0rmj4Dtaj bJclJetj Codtbnifll proy-rnk 4-A cAf'tA.L I Mjro-ocemeni ftc-m0^4japinj W
be oordmnIAIeA LAnd consistent a-rt"4 pi s uteciej ~& the ,L4 ern&6v f tu' t4P at
w x, s chosen to j r t, e si r es pr!ecesst
rI El M LA\ fin'&L budget d
programs be. mo(vati*r& ad r eu&lu&ed ars tb, thiar effct Cn Aehltglnl 11 ell- mana.edcj Jiw$C003,e
4Ad. rleCltJvoprdMo t, Ofqect iEeS?
LII Eic WAi^.&enceraL jursdihoiu,+ht pabslt &a erwjat ,nhr iie"ts a. pAtlrnherShp to
conts'noc I Mole. del)i htf4.e )S!jS-tnMfAsic Approom.1 i "b -e~sonbcj to 4he pf -S +
nratutallj resul) fr-am rapiCi. Ir-ouwi of- c or&-kr;orqt o t itvitisues* t
Ms. Kelly Carpenter-Craft
The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (LGCPA)
requires the preparation of local comprehensive plans, including
a land use plan (F.S.163.3161). The legislation further requires
that all development regulations and permits must be in
conformity with the comprehensive plan (F.S.163.3194(1)). The
LGCPA recommends that all development regulations may be combined
"in their totality" (F.S. 163.3194(2)(b)) into a single document
known as the "land development code" of the jurisdiction. The
legislation also requires that local governments implement their
plans (F.S. 163.3167). The Florida statutes are not specific
about the content or format of the comprehensive plan elements,
thus the door is left open to individual community creativity and
to plan development to meet distinct community needs. The plans
are as varied as the state of Florida in scope, detail and
content, and often require innovative implementation tools.
Many local governments implement their comprehensive plans
through zoning and subdivision regulations. These are long tested
and accepted methods for regulating land use location and the
building envelope around those land uses. The Florida Statutes
permit both zoning and subdivision regulation, and even envision
them as some of the major tools to implementing land use plans.
However, zoning does not appear to be mandated by the Florida
Some Florida communities have adopted a growth management
system as a central core to their comprehensive plans. To
implement some growth management plans, facilities and services
standards and methods for measuring the adequacy of public
facilities and services have been developed by communities. New
management tools were needed to measure impacts of development
and to insist that the private sector be an active participant in
paying for development. Controversy still rages over what is or
is not enabled by the Florida Statutes in the realm of developer
exactions and other new tools. However, Broward County's park
impact fee system has been upheld by the 4th District Court of
Appeals. Thus, communities are developing new tools to implement
their comprehensive plans.
There may be a need for local jurisdictions in Florida to
initiate special development controls to cope with their peculiar
growth problems. However, the problems associated with
formulating, adopting or implementing "special development
controls" are not great and are to a large extent, not hampered
by the state enabling legislation. Judicial testing of some of
these new tools will certainly continue as communities attempt
other methods for managing growth.
After adopting specific land use plan maps, pursuant to
F.S. 163, some communities have found that a number of other
development controls were better at implementing their plans than
traditional zoning. Several specific issues have emerged
implementing minimum adequacy standards for
development contained in local
comprehensive plans may be more readily
accomplished using tools other than
specific land use plan maps can make the
use regulating aspects of zoning redundant
to the land use planning process.
changes in the economy, demographics, and
technology cause shifts in both supply and
demand for housing, and shifts in design
and building capabilities can be more
efficiently handled using tools beyond
For example, Broward County, which has been a charter
county since 1974, adopted its county-wide land use plan in 1977.
The plan includes both policies and a specific land use plan map.
The map designates a land use for parcels in Broward County
including those parcels within Broward's twenty-nine
municipalities. No development order may be issued unless it is
in conformity with the county-wide plan, and all zoning
ordinances and maps must be in conformity with the County Land
Use Plan. The specific land use plan map constitutes a type of
development control which is "beyond zoning".
The City of Largo has adopted a land development code
which recognizes that the city's specific land use plan map
regulates land uses, and which implements a set of performance
standards to regulate the building envelope. The LGCPA does not
now require a specific land use plan map, although this was
considered by the legislature in the 1983 session and is expected
to be reconsidered in the up-coming 1984 session. The existence
of a specific land use plan map is what allows the City of Largo
to virtually eliminate the system of traditional zoning since it
is redundant with its specific map. If the LGCPA is amended to
require local jurisdictions to adopt specific land use plan maps,
we can expect movement to eliminate redundant zoning systems as
A third new type of development control is typified by
Broward County's Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 81-16,
adopted March, 1981). The Broward County Land Use Plan (BCLUP)
specifies that before any development order can be issued, all
required public services must be in place or programmed. The
land use plan does not tell cities or unincorporated Broward how
to implement this provision.
The county's LDC evolved from this adequacy requirement of
the BCLUP. The LDC sets forth minimum standards for seventeen
services, provides for a review of the methods applicants propose
for service provision, and establishes that impact fees for
parks, schools and roads may be required of the applicant before
a development order can be issued. Applicants are required to
pay an impact fee in situations where the proposed development
causes levels of service to exceed a minimum standard.
Applicants are not required to bring existing deficiencies (not
caused by the proposed development) up to some minimum level,
since these deficiencies are considered the local governments'
responsibility. This development control system was established
under existing enabling legislation, and is another growth
management tool "beyond zoning."
RESOLVING THE ISSUES
Possible methods for resolving the issues include:
1. Proposals which would require local jurisdictions to
adopt specific land use plan maps should be carefully
2. Legislation should be considered which specifically
enables impact fees or other similar exactions
(perhaps a real estate transfer tax).
3. Clear administrative direction from the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) should be given confirming
that zoning is, in fact, permissible and not
mandatory. The DCA should publicize efforts like the
City of Largo's and provide assistance to communities
promulgating new development management tools.
If the community is willing to prepare and adopt a
specific land use plan map, then zoning can be abandoned and
replaced with other development controls, such as building
envelope regulations which are incorporated into the local land
development code. The City of Largo has done away with
traditional zoning, and incorporated building envelope
regulations into the land development code. It allows the
specific land use plan to control use. Broward County is
considering such a system because it has two key ingredients
a. a sophisticated land development code, and
b. a very specific land use plan map.
Other examples of new development controls ate described
elsewhere in this text.
Broward County has adopted a form of growth management
which, in its county-wide land use plan, has adopted adequacy
standards which developers must meet before a development permit
can be issued. To apply the adequacy standards to new
development, the Land Development Code, including platting
requirements, was adopted. Impact fees were instituted in
recognition that continuing to tax existing residents to pay for
growth was becoming unacceptable, no alternative source of
funding was available, and to some measurable extent growth
should pay its own way.
The exaction of impact fees has been adjudicated in
Broward at the appellate level and upheld. Assistance from the
state could take the form of enabling legislation allowing
similar exactions. (If Proposition 1 passes, this option will be
Staff assistance from DCA on formulating new development
controls can take the form of information sharing: demonstrating
to local jurisdictions how aew controls have worked in other
If Florida is to q~gow as predicted by the 'J.S. Bureau of
the Census, .population will almost double between 1983 and 2000.
If so., a greater range of dAeelopment controls than ju-st
traditional zoning may be required to protect the public interest
(e..g., better 4esjqn, better site utilization, more efficient .use
of public resources, and better environmental conservation and
New development controls have been and are continuing to
be formulated, adopted and implemented in Florida. These have
been promulgated under existing enabling legislation and in both
home-rule and non-home-rule jurisdictions. The legal ability to
put forth new and better development regulations, designed to
meet community goals, is not at issue in Florida. It may be more
a question of re-evaluating community goals, and of the ability
to adequately staff to implement these more sophisticated
development control systems.