Al Maio and Mike Moran are unhappy that their own Board failed to observe the County Charter

A very interesting exchange in a story from the Sarasota News Leader titled: Delay in consultant’s completion of analysis of areas specified for future county residential development could stall processing of other Comprehensive Plan amendments, County Commission learns

The News Leader story could prove very important. It describes how Sarasota's elected officials have been approving new developments without first guaranteeing their fiscal neutrality. 

"Fiscal neutrality" is a goal stated in the Comprehensive Plan that new development shall and must pay for itself, not be paid for on the backs of county taxpayers.

It seems the Board has gone ahead and approved developments in a special area called the Future Urban Area outside of the existing Urban Service Area. However, it did not do the due diligence of a process mandated by the county Charter that requires new development to be fiscally neutral. 

At the meeting covered by the SNL, the discussion turned to the "future urban area" near Venice shown in this image courtesy of the SNL:

An aerial map shows the location of the Grand Palm Neal Communities development in Venice, which is part of the Future Urban Area. Image courtesy Sarasota County

Commissioners Maio and Moran seemed panic-stricken by what they were told by staff:

Does the consultant have to analyze all the other portions of the county in yellow, Maio asked again, including the “15, 16, 17 square miles that’s already annexed into the City of North Port and/or already under development, and/or inside a Critical Area Plan that’s been filed?”

The analysis would include all of the lands “that are under the Future Urban Area designation,” [County Planner Elma] Felix responded.

“That may be what the rulebook says,” Maio told her, “but to my dumb self … that’s preposterous, since it’s already under development …”

Then Maio asked how staff could streamline the process.

“Quite frankly, commissioner, I don’t know that there’s anything to be done to expedite the process much further than we’ve already identified,” Felix replied.

Bill Zoller, an architect who worked on county land use elements that eventually made it into both the Charter and the Comp plan, offered this comment:

This is a real scandal. The BCC has kicked this can down the road all this time…yet they remain on the hook to comply with the Citizens for Sensible Growth Charter Amendment (2.2A) that requires the Fiscal Neutrality analysis.  They have attempted to avoid it, and not to comply, because it will impose very difficult growth/infrastructure requirements on developers, so as not to burden unduly and unfairly Sarasota taxpayers.  Meanwhile, they seem to have pretended, more or less, that this requirement would somehow go away.  Unfortunately for the BCC, the only way this Charter Amendment can “go away” is through another charter amendment…which would require a citizen referendum.

Zoller was part of a working citizens group that sought to anticipate the worst case scenarios for bad growth, and to build in constraints to protect the land, the taxpayers, and the environment from the abuses of overdevelopment. He goes on to say:

Note Maio’s language here: "Maio then referred to the county Charter language about fiscal neutrality as “that poison pill,” adding, “And now we’re paying the price, again and again and again, unless somebody wants to correct me publicly … I’m just flabbergasted.”

They have always been aware of this requirement, yet they have blithely proceeded as though it did not exist.  This requirement was never intended as a “poison pill”…it was intended to make sure that developments, with the great burdens they might otherwise place on taxpayers with their infrastructure requirements, would pay for those burdens.  They must be fiscally neutral.

Note that the "Future Urban Area" includes large sectors of the county where developers have initiated expensive plans for giant developments - as visible in this image from the SNL:

Zoller added:

The commissioners have put themselves into a severe bind; it is now incumbent on them to put on hold all approvals that require the Fiscal Neutrality Analysis until such time as those analyses have been properly performed and commitments for the infrastructure to secure that neutrality have been made by the developers of any such developments.

This is a huge issue that needed to have been addressed years ago; wishful thinking did not and will not get it done.

Though still developing, this important story puts in focus the conflict between a sober planning process that requires care and thoughtful provision for costs and impacts on the one hand, and a concierge-style Board that does all within its power to duck, shirk, and otherwise ignore the rules in order to let developers save time and money at the public expense. Stay tuned.