The proposed growth management ordinance is scheduled for what appears to be a final hearing Thursday before the board of county commissioners.
Given the tremendous amount of work done on this proposed ordinance by the county manager and staff as well as the district attorney's office, coupled with voluminous public input, my guess is that it will likely pass.
But that's only a guess. These public officials are to be commended for their hard work.
What appears to be the close-to-final version of the ordinance has now been published. The compounding 2-percent rate of growth remains in the ordinance and we, the Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee, continue in our opposition to the compounding concept which will result in an ever-increasing number of allocations issued each year.
True, the incremental increase in allocations is fairly modest in the earlier years starting with 317 allocations authorized for the fiscal year 2007, but by the year 2034 the number will be 541 and by 2056 (the year when what is called "build-out" will occur) it will be 837.
However, a moderating influence serving to reduce what would otherwise be a higher overall rate of growth than a 2 percent compounded rate, has now been built into the ordinance which makes compounding more digestible Ð at least over approximately the next 15 to 25 years.
That is, projects which have been previously approved before the effective date of this ordinance, consisting of some 4,700 dwelling units yet to be built, will be supplied by or deducted from the total allocations authorized under this ordinance rather than be in addition to the units authorized under the 2 percent growth rate.
While these 4,700 previously approved units can legally be built any time, the overall result is more acceptable, one we can support but only if other major problems can be resolved.
There is a concept called "banking and borrowing" of allocations built into the ordinance. While on its face this allows new large projects to adjust their building activities to meet market conditions, the way it is now written is much too liberal and will likely operate to the detriment of smaller size builders and individual lot owners and result in business as usual Ð no real growth control.
As now drafted, the county staff can set aside up to 50 percent from any future year's total allocations for the purpose of "borrowing" by builders of new large projects.
Such builders can reach out through 10 years to accommodate themselves on a phase by phase basis, rather than being geared to the time line of the total project.
There is a lot wrong with this "borrowing" approach. Even given the discretionary authority to be exercised by county staff to limit abuse, what should be built into the ordinance are better outer limits. A 10-year reach out for borrowing on any project should be reduced to no more than three years as was set forth in the earlier drafts. The set aside for borrowing should be calculated on the total number of allocations for any future year after first deducting the amount to be used for prior approved projects (referred to in the ordinance's Table A as "allocations available to distribute"). The 50 percent set aside for "borrowing" should be reduced - it's too high. The smaller developer and individual lot owners need to be protected from the voracious appetites of large developers.
I've saved the worst news for last. Passage of this ordinance as now drafted repeals the Sustainable Growth Initiative as of July 1, 2007. The District Attorney's office has apparently concluded that the county commissioners can do so at this time. We respectfully disagree. Apart from who's right or wrong on this legal issue, immediate repeal, without going to the voters, is an utter slap in the face of the majority of voters who approved the measure back in November 2002. The fact that the initiative ordinance has been tied up in court all these years is beside the point. What is needed here is an effort to pay respect to the voters by allowing them to express their sentiments when this ordinance comes up for an advisory voter approval in November 2008. The solution is to defer any repeal pending that vote. We have submitted language to that effect to the commissioners. Hopefully, they will realize that the immediate repeal of the Sustainable Growth Initiative on July 1, 2007, may well deter a majority of the voters from approving this new ordinance. Isn't it time to bring the dissension between the majority of the voters and county government to an end by doing the right thing?
If these few, but very important issues are appropriately addressed, then our committee will wholeheartedly and openly support this ordinance and encourage voters in 2008 to approve it.
John H. Garvin, Co-chair
Minden
Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee
