Adopted October 2, 1996
Adopted by GVMC December 5, 1996
There is a recognized need for
the creation of a new, local "paradigm" to assist local units in managing
growth and development within our metro area. This new paradigm would
seek to avoid destructive competition for tax base and would promote rational,
regional coordination of recreation, transportation, public services,
housing and other community institutions. This new paradigm, therefore,
should include elements of utility regionalization, the development of
an urban services district and/or urban growth boundary, and may include
some cooperative sharing of regional revenues and resources.
Further refinement of this paradigm
may, indeed, include the development of an Urban Growth Boundary, an area
wide utility authority, revenue/resource sharing mechanisms and regional
planning review/control.All this would, of course, be framed within the
context of a long term strategy and the Overall Policy Statement.
Overall Policy Statement
We will encourage and assist economic
development and protection of the environment for the general benefit
of residents of this area, within both our Cities and Townships. This
concept/process is a long term strategy and based upon our realization
that our local units of government are "mutually interdependent." We will
utilize the Metropolitan Development Blueprint, published by GVMC, as
our overriding "plan." Our goals include an acceptance of growth coupled
with our strong desire to manage it. To that end we make a commitment
to cooperation that concentrates on our "mutual benefit."
Points of Agreement
Urban sprawl is undesirable
. While Urban Growth is desirable, Urban Sprawl (un-managed
development) is undesirable and, as concluded in the Metropolitan
Development Blueprint, "by allowing our region to continue to develop
into an urban sprawl is an inefficient and ineffective use of public
and private sector financial resources."
Metropolitan-wide
planning should be done on a metropolitan-wide basis . The
interest of the entire metropolitan area is best served when
development occurs pursuant to a continuous, rational, metropolitan-wide
land use and infrastructure planning process which limits sprawl,
preserves open space and farmland, and reinforce existing development
areas.
An Urban Growth Boundary
should be established . The metropolitan community
should jointly establish and comply with the establishment
of an urban growth boundary as a means of determining where
urban services and development should occur.
Minimum urban service
standards should be established . The metropolitan community
should jointly determine minimum standards for urban services to
be provided within an established urban growth boundary. Likewise,
there should be agreement on the maximum level of urban services
provided to those areas outside of an urban growth boundary. The
establishment of such minimum and maximum standards would be for
the purpose of achieving "compact centers of regional economic
activity" as
recommended by the Blueprint. Such standards are intended to promote
efficient transportation systems for people and commerce, efficient
use of land, adequate utility capacity and access to the area's
natural resources.
There should be Regional
Financial Equity. The cost of providing "Regional" services
and needs should be shared in an equitable manner and on a regional
basis. All metropolitan communities should share through some
method the funding of regional services and the cost of addressing
regional needs so that no single community bears an inequitable
share of such responsibilities. Elements of this could include
a plan for County-wide or regional financing for municipal services,
including emergency services, transportation, recreational and
cultural activities and facilities, development rights programs
or greenways, and a method by which all jurisdictions benefit by
the growth of revenues.
We should make use
of a variety of tools to Manage our Growth . Just
as a carpenter's tool box contains a variety of tools, each
designed for a specific purpose, we should make available
and make use of a wide variety of land use and growth management
tools. These could include
development impact fees, utility service districts, programs
that provide for the purchase and transfer of development
rights, agricultural security zones, concurrency (a process
whereby development and required infrastructure occur at the
same time), official maps, regional planning review and mutual
annexation. Some of these tools are currently available and
we acknowledge that some may require action and authorization
by the Legislature.
We should continue
to seek alternatives to and find solutions to resolve annexation
conflicts . Our annexation policies, and subsequent
actions, need to consider the needs of both townships and cities.
These needs include the preservation of "a perceived quality of
life," the maintenance
of local identity and self rule, an unwillingness to become "swallowed-up"
by another unit, the inability to determine ones' future due to
utility extension policies and other "structures" imposed by outside
entities, and an unwillingness to pay higher taxes for unwanted/unneeded
services. Other issues to consider include the provision of services
to outside areas with no compensation, an unwillingness to extend
utilities that promote development in new areas that then compete
with/replace businesses in another jurisdiction, the unwarranted
perception that some units are "the bad guys or bullies" and
are "grabbing
land," and an inability
to determine ones' own future due to financial constrictions. As
a part of our annexation strategy we should continue to pursue
policies that help reduce incentives for land owners to seek annexation
(jump jurisdictions) in order to "get a better deal."
There should be Uniform
Utility Extension Policies, Practices, and Pricing . This
could take the form of a regional utility authority for the provision
of water, sanitary and/or storm water. These extension policies
should incorporate a "global/regional" perspective of economic
development, the results of which will benefit the entire area
for the growth these policies help to create. The potential for
pricing of utility services to "steer" growth and development to
predetermined areas should be pursued as a means to guide metropolitan
growth. A metropolitan Utility Services District should be created
to assist in the promoting and planning for growth.
We will continue
to encourage and support the development of Sub-regional Alliances
. We recognize that specific issues may need more intense
review than a metro-wide organization will be able to provide.
In those instances, it may be prudent to form ad hoc, smaller
management units that will address specific issues or concerns
on a "less-than-metro" basis. Similar groups now in existence
include the East Beltline Planning group and the Four Corners
Planning Group.
