Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Congestion: Not just Bradenton and Palmetto...

Best of 2014: Why Subsidizing Developers on Road Improvements will Lead to More Congestion in Bradenton and Palmetto

Published Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:10 am
clientuploads/County_Commission/McClash_Portrait_SM.jpg
Recently, the Manatee County Commission has made several troubling decisions regarding the prioritization of roadway projects, even going so far as eliminating the use of local funds, mostly generated from development impact fees. This change will now use state and federal funds, robbing scarce dollars needed to eliminate traffic congestion in our downtown areas. State law, along with Manatee County's own comp plan, requires “new development pay for its fair share of the cost of County Capital Facilities required to accommodate new development through the imposition of Impact Fees.” Using state and federal dollars to subsidize private developers does not meet that criteria, nor is it a square deal for citizens. 

Since Governor Scott gutted the Department of Community Affairs, there exists almost no oversight of local government growth plans and approvals. Instead, we now have the Department of Economic Opportunity and its short-sided focus on the number of projected jobs it can report, rather than true sustainable growth or quality of life considerations. Our local Florida Senator, Bill Galvano (R-Bradenton), is following suit with a proposed bill that would eliminate Development of Regional Impact (DRI) requirements, since he feels that local government can provide the expertise. However, from the recent county approvals of incompatible and sprawling developments, to subsidizing what developers would pay in impact fees for roads, it becomes evident that state oversight is sorely needed.

Policies that reflect a philosophy that new growth must pay for the road improvements it requires, have been established for over 20 years, yet we are seeing a clear divergence in these recent decisions. Let us use University Parkway and the I-75 interchange and itsexperimental fix of over $60 million as one example. 20 years ago there were no developments east of the Interstate, so it would be safe to say that the original property owner, who owned most of this land; Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, developed Lakewood Ranch and should have to pay for the current needs of the roadways. Why else would we need them?

The developers presented the plans, along with the required traffic studies, while giving assurances that the Level of Service would be maintained. Betsy Benac, now a Manatee County Commissioner, represented most of these plans, and had they been accurate, we would not have failing roads. Benac recently voted to ask the state to pay for what should have been her ex-client's responsibilities. Benac also worked for Benderson Development, who now owns most of the property surrounding the I-75/University intersection and should be responsible for paying for needed improvements. Yet again, we do not see Commissioner Benac holding the developers she worked for accountable. Instead, she expects the taxpayers to foot the bill.

There is no doubt that the roads are congested in this area and need to be improved, but we have to recognize that our current system of trusting development procedures to insure that growth actually is paying for itself, has failed, at the very least, the intent of our laws, if not the laws themselves. We need new policies so that this failure does not continue to swallow up taxpayer money in order to pad the coffers of developers. 

44th Avenue is another roadway for which the county commission recently substituted state and federal dollars for what should have been paid for by developers, in order for SMR to maintain the level of services in their Lakewood Ranch development. So why are taxpayers again footing the bill? As a commissioner, I suggested that SMR realize those costs, as intended. The traffic studies that the county produced showed that these improvements were indeed needed, and since you have mostly one property owner east of the interstate, enforcing the requirement would have been simple. Maybe this is one of the reasons that developers spent so much money getting me replaced with one of their own.

The State of Florida even created a new taxing district for SMR called a stewardship district, in order to fund these and other improvements needed for their development. So far, they have not used this district to pay for all of the needed improvements. Meanwhile, developers are making record profits at the expense of the taxpayers. 

An even bigger consideration is the effects of losing the money that developers are not paying. It's one thing to have taxpayers in effect subsidizing new and profitable growth, but when money is taken from one pot to be given to another, it impacts our ability to fund other projects, such as improvements to critically-congested corridors like the DeSoto and Green bridges, where they intersect with Manatee Avenue. How many of us get stuck now in traffic that is backed-up because of these intersections, as people enter and leave downtown? It routinely gets so bad that the turning vehicles cannot clear the through lanes when the signals change. Don't get mad at the driver, it's not their fault. It is the failure to keep up with needed improvements. It is not just a downtown/city issue either. These corridors impact all of us. 

I submitted concepts over 10 years ago to improve these areas and pushed for several projects, but for too many others on the board, there was never a sense of urgency. These projects are unavoidable and will come at significant cost, which could be as high as a few hundred million dollars, and they only get more expensive the longer we put them off. Even if we made them a top priority today, it could take 15 years to get a project done. Still, that sense of urgency doesn't seem to have grown among board members, yet we see Commissioners like Vanessa Baugh rushing to Tallahassee in order to get funds for what developers were required to pay for. Why is there no such passion for the other congestion problems?

It's sad to say, but the only difference I see between funding for downtown and I-75 is that the citizens can't supply the kind of fundraising dollars that the developers routinely throw around, lining campaign accounts from local elected officials all the way to Congress. Isn’t our downtown just as congested as University and I-75? One look at the map of developer-owned property and their corresponding political donations and it's impossible to think that they are only expecting access to their elected officials. There's an old saying: if a plan doesn't make sense, it must be political. But it's nothing short of political corruption if those donations come with an expectation of something in return.

So why are impact fees not paying what they used to? County Administrator Ed Hunzeker wanted it that way, plain and simple. Hunzeker took over the impact fee study completed in 2011. During the recession, the majority of the BOCC voted to reduce impact fees in half, even though every report said it would not stimulate growth or increase jobs. But Hunzeker wanted to cut impact fees, so he changed the policy framework in which impact fees are calculated. It is evident that his goal was to reduce the impact fees in order to favor the developers, who meanwhile, brag about their record profits. It is also evident now that the impact fees have been too low, otherwise we wouldn't have to use state and federal dollars to pay for our failing local roads. It's simple math: expenses for roads needed for growth equals impact fee revenues and developer funded roads – unless that is, you want to ignore laws and policies for the benefit of special interests.

Another simple method we could use would be to establish what I call Infrastructure Planning Areas, and use them as a business plan for not only roads, but schools, parks and other needs created by growth. This becomes a financial plan and creates an easy way to measure accurate cost of growth. Our current system does not even relate impact fees to specific road projects needed for that growth. How does this make sense? Hunzeker is an accountant and he should have accountability!

The recent change in MPO priorities approved by commissioners also violate the Long Range Plan (LRP), a document required by the federal government for the use of federal funds, and one that the board must be consistent with. The most recent LRP placed the priority on mass transit and had projects like Bus Rapid Transit. Now the commission wants to change priorities set in the LRP, replacing Bus Rapid Transit with a section of 44th Avenue, in their words “effectively promoting it from cost-feasible-with-local-funds to cost-feasible-with-Federal-funds.” This shift in policy might sound harmless, but the LRP option without a mass transit focus included more roads, and that costs even more money. The total growth plan will not have enough money to pay for these new roads without impact fees or required developer improvements, creating still more problems down the line.

Amazingly enough, Hunzeker is working on a plan called How Will We Grow?, a fancy phrase which, based on his past performance (along with that of the majority of the commission), will only reinforce these current practices. Quality of life is important anywhere, but has always been at the heart of what residents treasure about Manatee County. However, as long as administrators and elected officials continue to place the bottom line of deep-pocketed developers above what is best for the vast majority of people who live in this wonderful community, I'm afraid we already know the answer to Mr. Hunzeker's question.

Joe McClash is a 22-year veteran of the Manatee County Commission and the publisher of The Bradenton Times. He can be reached at publisher@thebradentontimes.com.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Population explosion for Sarasota and Manatee

Planners bracing for influx of residents


Some 40,000 international tourists, a new mall and 5,000 more homes are in the pipeline for the Interstate 75- University Parkway area, yet there is no immediate plan for roadwork to improve the already burdened interchange. STAFF PHOTO / THOMAS BENDER
Published: Monday, December 15, 2014 at 3:07 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, December 15, 2014 at 3:07 p.m.
MANATEE COUNTY - The population of Sarasota County could grow by 72 percent and Manatee County's could grow by 67 percent over a 40-year span, according to research presented Monday to a regional transportation panel.


Facts

MORE PEOPLE AND JOBS

On Monday, a Sarasota-Manatee transportation planning board compared 2010 census data with population and work force projections for 2040.

For Manatee County, including all of Longboat Key, the numbers cited are:
2010 population — 318,500
2040 population — 469,100
Increase — 150,000
Growth rate — 2 percent
2010 employment — 153,000
2040 employment — 229,600
Increase in jobs — 76,600
Job growth rate — 3 percent

For Sarasota County, excluding all of Longboat Key, the numbers cited are:
2010 population — 373,700
2040 population — 518,100
Increase — 144,400
Growth rate — 2 percent
2010 employment — 213,000
2040 employment 267,900
Increase in jobs — 54,900
Job growth rate — 1 percent
SOURCE: Sarasota Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Three ranches added to Florida Forever

via Herald-Tribune 

3 ranches added to Florida conservation list


More than 5,770 acres of undeveloped land in North Port on McCall Ranch went up for auction on Feb. 13, 2014.
HERALD-TRIBUNE ARCHIVE / ELAINE LITHERLAND
Published: Friday, December 12, 2014 at 2:11 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, December 12, 2014 at 2:11 p.m.
Three ranches in Sarasota and Manatee counties were added to the state's conservation priority list on Friday.
Two border Myakka River State Park and would help buffer the popular attraction.
The third — the Orange Hammock Ranch, formerly known as McCall Ranch — is in North Port, and its inclusion on the state's Florida Forever conservation list has been questioned by city officials who want to see the property developed.
North Port leaders persuaded the Sarasota County Commission not to endorse the Orange Hammock portion of the Florida Forever application this week. The controversy did not stop state officials from moving ahead with the conservation deal, but it still has a long way to go.
Being added to the Florida Forever list does not guarantee the ranches will be protected from development, but it clears the way for more detailed talks with the landowners to see if a deal is possible.
“It's definitely a great first step,” said Debi Osborne, who helped put together the Florida Forever application as director of land protection for the Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast in Osprey.
Osborne said the Conservation Foundation is still open to working with North Port officials or “anyone who wants to be a partner in these transactions.”
Finding a partner for the Orange Hammock deal is essential because the landowners want to sell the entire property and the Conservation Foundation only applied for enough state funding to purchase conservation easements on the three ranches.
The foundation will now look for public or private buyers for Orange Hammock. If a private buyer comes forward, ranching or other commercial activities that are compatible with a conservation easement might continue on the property, Osborne said.
A similar arrangement must be found for the Triangle Ranch in Manatee County. That property owner also wants to sell the entire ranch, not simply a conservation easement.
The owner of Sheps Island Ranch — the third property included in the Florida Forever application — is interested in a conservation easement only, Osborne said.
The three ranches cover a combined 7,564 acres and are conservatively valued at $14.2 million.
Triangle Ranch has three miles of frontage along the Myakka River on the state park's northern boundary. Sheps Island Ranch is visible from the main visitor area along the park's western boundary. Shielding it from development would help protect the visitor experience.
Osborne describes Orange Hammock Ranch as the largest undeveloped property in Sarasota County that “remains primarily in its natural condition.”
The property borders other conservation lands in the so-called Myakka Island region, and would add to the cluster of preserved properties surrounding the state park.
Orange Hammock was bought by a developer during the real estate boom and was once slated for 15,000 homes. That deal fell apart during the Great Recession. The property owner filed for bankruptcy protection and the ranch was claimed by the mortgage holder.
An effort to auction off the ranch in sections to private developers was unsuccessful.
Regardless, North Port leaders view the property as an important economic development opportunity. Most of the land in North Port is already subdivided into small lots created decades ago. Large properties that might be more suitable for commercial or high-end residential development are rare.
“If all the land goes where none of it is able to be used for development in North Port, that is a big concern,” said City Commissioner Jacqueline Moore.
Moore said she hopes city leaders and Conservation Foundation officials can work together on an alternative to completely preserving Orange Hammock. Foundation leaders said they are open to suggestions.
“That's a big piece of property,” Osborne said. “We're going to be talking to all the stakeholders.
“We understand that both the city and the county have interests and issues.”

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Is Sarasota County betraying its history and heritage?

via the Herald Trib:


Support for land conservation deal dwindles


More than 5,770 acres of undeveloped land in North Port on McCall Ranch went up for auction on Feb. 13, 2014.
HERALD-TRIBUNE ARCHIVE / ELAINE LITHERLAND
Published: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 4:08 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 5:33 p.m.
SARASOTA COUNTY - North Port leaders working to scuttle a conservation deal involving a large ranch within city limits scored a victory Tuesday when the Sarasota County Commission declined to endorse an application for state funding.
The Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast has been working to put the 5,774-acre Orange Hammock Ranch on the state's Florida Forever list of priority land acquisitions. State officials will vote on the application Thursday and the Conservation Foundation has been trying to strengthen its case by lining up local support.
But city leaders have long wanted to see much of the property developed and are trying to block the deal.
“Leave it in private hands,” former North Port Mayor Jim Blucher said.
Blucher was among a handful of city leaders who urged county officials not to support the conservation deal Tuesday. The city also sent a formal letter to the County Commission asking it to abstain from endorsing the Florida Forever application.
County commissioners voted unanimously not to endorse the Orange Hammock portion of the Florida Forever application, with some lambasting Conservation Foundation officials.
“This process has been very damaging,” said Commissioner Christine Robinson.
Robinson said the Conservation Foundation should have done more to get city leaders on board with the Orange Hammock deal. She and other commissioners suggested coming up with an arrangement that would carve out a piece of the land for development to satisfy city leaders.
Conservation Foundation officials said they have tried to work with private developers to buy a portion of the land, even reaching out to Syd Kitson, who put together the blockbuster Babcock Ranch deal that preserved most of that property for conservation while also allowing development on a portion of the land in Charlotte and Lee counties.
Kitson passed on Orange Hammock Ranch, and so has every other private developer who looked at the property in recent months.
“What's important to note is that the landowner has requested this to be done, the landowner wishes this” to be purchased for conservation, said Christine Johnson, President of the Conservation Foundation. “That is a private property right.”
Local government support is not required to place a project on the Florida Forever list and it is unclear if the decisions by Sarasota County and North Port not to support the Orange Hammock funding request will affect its chances for approval.
County leaders did endorse the purchase of two other properties included in the same Florida Forever application under the state's conservation land program.
Controversial piece of land
The Orange Hammock property has been controversial for years.
Once known as the McCall Ranch, it once was slated for 15,000-home development. But the project fell apart during the Great Recession.
The property owner recently filed for bankruptcy protection, and the ranch was claimed by the mortgage holder. Developers explored buying sections of the ranch but a land auction did not yield high enough bids.
Environmental advocates have targeted the property for preservation because of its location near other preserved lands and vast expanse of undisturbed natural areas.
“It's a great site for conservation,” said Jono Miller, an environmental advocate who spoke in favor of the deal Tuesday.
North Port is Sarasota County's largest municipality, both in population and area. It covers 103 square miles, much of which remains undeveloped, with thousands of vacant lots that were platted by the city's original developer, the General Development Cor
EARLIER: North Port leaders working to scuttle a conservation deal involving a large ranch within city limits scored a victory Tuesday when the Sarasota County Commission declined to endorse an application for state funding.
The Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast has been working to put the 5,774-acre Orange Hammock Ranch on the state's Florida Forever list of priority land acquisitions. State officials will vote on the application Thursday and the Conservation Foundation has been trying to strengthen its case by lining up local support.
But many city leaders have long wanted to see much of the property developed and are trying to block the deal from going through.
“Leave it in private hands,” said former North Port Mayor Jim Blucher.
Blucher was among a handful of city leaders who urged county officials not to support the conservation deal Tuesday. The city also sent a formal letter to the County Commission asking them to abstain from endorsing the Florida Forever application.
County commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday not to endorse the Orange Hammock portion of the Florida Forever application, with some lambasting Conservation Foundation officials.
“This process has been very damaging,” said Commissioner Christine Robinson.
Robinson said the Conservation Foundation should have done more to get city leaders on board with the Orange Hammock deal. She and other commissioners suggested coming up with an arrangement that would carve out a piece of the land for development to satisfy city leaders.
Conservation Foundation officials said they have tried to work with private developers to buy a portion of the land, even reaching out to Syd Kitson, who put together the blockbuster Babcock Ranch deal that preserved most of that property for conservation while also allowing development on a portion of the land in Charlotte and Lee counties.
Kitson passed on Orange Hammock Ranch and so has every other private developer who looked at the property in recent months.
“What's important to note is that the landowner has requested this to be done, the landowner wishes this” to be purchased for conservation said Christine Johnson, President of the Conservation Foundation. “That is a private property right.”
Local government support is not required to place a project on the Florida Forever list and it's unclear if the decisions by Sarasota County and North Port not to support the Orange Hammock funding request will affect its chances for approval.
County leaders did endorse the purchase of two other properties included in the same Florida Forever application.
The Orange Hammock property has been controversial for years. Once known as the McCall Ranch, it once was slate for 15,000-home development but the project fell apart during the Great Recession.
The property owner recently filed for bankruptcy protection, and the ranch was claimed by the mortgage holder. Developers explored buying sections of the ranch but a land auction did not yield high enough bids.
Environmental advocates have targeted the property for preservation because of its location near other preserved lands and vast expanse of undisturbed natural areas.
“It's a great site for conservation,” said Jono Miller, an environmental advocate who spoke in favor of the deal Tuesday.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Yet another special exception to Sarasota 2050

Developing story at the Herald Tribune:

Developer Neal gets OK to add gates at Grand Palm



Published: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 11:25 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 5:49 p.m.
SARASOTA COUNTY - Residents of Venice’s new Grand Palm community describe the development in idyllic terms, using words like “paradise” to describe the large lakes, preserved natural areas, walking trails, community pool and other amenities.
The property has been a hot seller for regional developer Pat Neal, who reported this week that Grand Palm’s 18 home sales last month led all of his communities.
But home buyers have not been the only ones attracted to the community: Residents say people are coming from miles around to walk their dogs, swim in the pool, use the tennis courts and let their children play on the splash pad.

Grand Palm homeowner Patty Corvino confronted one outsider at the pool recently and was swatted in the face with a rolled up towel. The situation led Corvino and others to request that Neal put up gates to keep the public out.

There was just one problem: Sarasota County’s development regulations prohibit gates in communities such as Grand Palm that are governed by the county’s 2050 growth management plan. So on Tuesday, Neal asked the County Commission for a special exception to 2050’s policy.

Gates restrict pedestrian and vehicle traffic and one of the major goals of 2050 is to make communities more walkable and interconnected so that residents don’t clog major roadways traveling from one neighborhood to another. But commissioners unanimously sided with Neal.
The vote came less than two months after county leaders approved what was supposed to be the third and final round of changes to 2050, raising questions about why the debate over gated communities was not addressed then.

Neal said after the hearing that “we don’t want to make this policy universal for Sarasota County in case there’s different circumstances” and he preferred to deal “with the particular situation in Grand Palm.”

Commissioners said Grand Palm — slated for 1,999 homes at build-out — may be a special case because it is not as large as other proposed 2050 developments and may not need as much public access or interconnection.
“I think this one was unique because it’s smaller,” commission chairman Charles Hines said.
“I think this one was unique because it’s smaller,” commission chairman Charles Hines said.
Hines emphasized that Grand Palm’s roads and amenities are being paid for through private money and will not revert to taxpayers when the development is complete. Providing the property with a special exception preserves the overall 2050 prohibition on gates so that larger developments, such as an extension of Lakewood Ranch into Sarasota County that may have more public infrastructure, will be more accessible, Hines said.
“I think the policy should stay there,” he said.
Allowing gates at Grand Palm “by no means sets a precedent in any sort of way” for other 2050 developments going forward, added Commissioner Christine Robinson.
“This is where you have theory and practical application colliding,” Robinson said. “The theory is great and it sounds fantastic. Then the practical application is making life miserable to those folks in that area.”
Residents applauded when commissioners voted to allow the gates.
Nobody spoke against the proposal.
Ed Legere bought the sixth house built in Grand Palm. He and other neighbors like the aspects of 2050 that require large amounts of open space to be preserved, but the retiree from New York said other restrictions are impractical.
The 2050 plan was adopted more than a decade ago in an attempt to open up rural areas of Sarasota County to more development while providing higher standards for new communities. Projects approved under 2050 are supposed to be walkable, preserve more open space and conform with other “new urbanist” planning ideas.
Commissioners recently completed a major overhaul of the plan that was designed to make it less onerous for developers. The debate over gated communities may be a sign that 2050 could continue to generate controversy for years to come.
“There’s a difference between a vision and how it all works out,” Legere said.
EARLIER: Just when it seemed the controversy surrounding Sarasota County's 2050 growth management plan had started to die down, developer Pat Neal is set to go before the Sarasota County Commission Tuesday with another complaint about the regulations.
The issue this time: 2050's prohibition on gated communities. A representative for Neal says the absence of gates at his Grand Palm development in Venice is resulting in trespassing, vandalism and theft and that gated communities not regulated by 2050 have an “unfair advantage” over non-gated 2050 developments.
Gated communities are more desirable and more profitable. But gates restrict pedestrian and vehicle traffic and one of the major goals of 2050 is to make communities more walkable and interconnected so that residents don't have to clog up major roadways traveling from one neighborhood to another.
The commission recently completed a major overhaul of 2050, but it looks like developers continue to have concerns about the plan and may be pushing more changes for years to come.
Check back at HeraldTribune.com for more on this developing story.