Title: Grouup C - Urban Policy: Planning
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004247/00001
 Material Information
Title: Grouup C - Urban Policy: Planning
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Grouup C - Urban Policy: Planning (JDV Box 89)
General Note: Box 19, Folder 1 ( Growth Management Conference - 1983 ), Item 9
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004247
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text




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

















By Ms. Dana D. Minerva

October, 1983


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.


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

their plans.

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

regulations stating:

"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

comprehensive plans.

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




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.


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.




:y of Plans

* Provide better funding for local planning and more

technical assistance.

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

additional elements:

-agricultural land preservation

-capital improvements plans

-hurricane evacuation plans (when appropriate)

Repeal the requirement that LGCPA plans include a

utilities element.

Plan Implementation

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

improvements planning

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

appraisal report

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

these plans.

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

October, 1983

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.


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

will require:

1. Reorientation of transportation agencies from the present

production dominated organization structure to a management

oriented organization, while still providing the necessary

production capacity;

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.


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

transportation projects;

5. Monitor the operation of transportation improvements to

analyze and evaluate their impacts on development patterns.


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

transportation plans.

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.


By Mr. Glenn W. Robertson

October, 1983


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.


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.


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
developed plan.

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
residential facilities.

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
and policies.

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
managed businesses.

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
resulting problems.


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.


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
pertinent sources.

(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
political realities.

Option 2: The CIP as a Capital Maintenance of Effort and Limited
Proactive Tool

(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
redevelopment management.

(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
Effort Tool

(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.

[Option 2:

(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.

option 3:

(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.


3z fl~lIoA-.9S InIjIf5 90 % of Florida's population 6 m',il, n
growth z peopIlefromr O+er Stztes
Iq80: 917
7 a 9 JqqO:12.3 "
20:14.6 '

_ta.e ait) Oto

('*r -
;M Va

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


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






24,e Wa;stebc
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
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


40 :70d



Ms. Kelly Carpenter-Craft

October, 1983


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

traditional zoning.

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

traditional zoning.

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."


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.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs