Sustainable Land Use Principles

1
SustainableLand UsePrinciples
2
Purpose
To describe

• What we have discovered about land-use
• What aspects are sustainable for the county
• How the greater good of the county is served by
  applying these principles

3
Research Findings

• General Concepts

4
Conventional Wisdom
Myths

• 1. Growth provides needed revenues
• 2. We have to grow to provide jobs
• 3. We have to choose between the environment and
  the economy
• 4. Most people dont really support open space or
  the environment
• 5. We have to Grow or Die.
• 6. Vacant land is just going to waste
• 7. A persons visual preference doesnt count

5
Myth 1 Growth Provides Needed Revenues

• Yes, there are new revenues
• But there are also new costs
• Costs generally exceed revenue
• Citizens hoping for a tax windfall are liable to
  be disappointed

6
Myth 2. We Have to Grow to Provide Jobs

• The state and federal governments get income tax
  revenue, but the county does not
• New Jobs do not necessarily go to local residents
• Job creation frequently increases unemployment

7
Myth 3 We Have to Choose between Environment
and Economy

• Reality Environmental Standards Economic
  Prosperity go hand-in-hand

Top States Gold Green Bottom States Gold Green
1 Vermont 3 1 41 Arkansas 47 37
2 Hawaii 1 4 42 Indiana 38 47
3 New Hampshire 6 2 43 Kentucky 45 40
4 Minnesota 2 7 44 South Carolina 44 42
5 Wisconsin 9 6 45 Tennessee 41 48
6 Colorado 11 5 46 Texas 40 49
7 Oregon 8 9 47 Alabama 46 46
8 Massachusetts 12 8 48 Mississippi 49 43
9 Connecticut 4 18 49 West Virginia 48 45
10 Maryland 10 12 50 Louisiana 50 50
8
Myth 4 Most People Dont Support Open Space
Environment

• Reality
• Strong Support Nationally
• Strong Support in Clear Creek County

9
Myth 5 We Have to Grow or Die

• People in the County do not believe this
• Growth can be managed and directed
• Growth management protects a communitys unique
  character
• Our citizens want directed growth
• Ultimately, growth is not sustainable

10
Myth 6 Vacant Land Is Just Going to Waste

• Undeveloped land requires little public support
• Undeveloped land increases surrounding property
  values
• Open Space and Farm Land help capture water and
  helps clean air

11
Myth 7 A Persons Visual Preference Doesnt
Count

• Views add to the tax base
• People have paid for the views
• Destruction is permanent

12
Research FindingsQuantitative Data
13
Research FindingsCost of Development
14
Cost of County Services
15
County Services in DE
16
County Services in WA
17
Cost of County Infrastructure
18
Displaced Revenue
19
Impact on Other County Taxes
20
Summary of Development Costs

1. County Services
2. County Infrastructure
3. Displaced Revenue (e.g., revenue lost to existing
   businesses)
4. Impact on Other County Taxes
5. Implied Additional Projects (e.g., housing for
   jobs created)

21
County Costs per Revenue Residential

• 2. Services Required 1.20 1.80
• 3. Infrastructure 0.70 1.00
• 4. Displaced Revenue 0
• 5. Re-Evaluation Effect (0.20) 0.20
• 6. Other Projects 0
• Total Cost per Revenue 1.70 3.00

22
County Costs per Revenue Commercial

• 2. Services Required 0.67 0.75
• 3. Infrastructure 0.50 1.50
• 4. Displaced Revenue 0.00 0.50
• 5. Re-Evaluation Effect 0.00 0.20
• 6. Other Projects 0.00 0.80
• Total Cost per Revenue 1.17 3.75

23
Costs Implications for County Policy Makers

• There are two types of Cost/Benefit Analysis
• Cost/Benefit to the Developer
• Cost/Benefit to the County
• We need to analyze Cost/Benefit to the County

24
GrowthDoes NotPay
25
Growth Does Not PayExceptions

• Beggar thy Neighbor
• Mansions
• Urban Infill

exceptions that prove the rule
26
County Costs per Revenue Residential

• 2. Services Required 1.20 1.80
• 3. Infrastructure 0.70 1.00
• 4. Displaced Revenue 0
• 5. Re-Evaluation Effect (0.20) 0.20
• 6. Other Projects 0
• Total Cost per Revenue 1.70 3.00

27
County Costs per Revenue Commercial

• 2. Services Required 0.67 0.75
• 3. Infrastructure 0.50 1.50
• 4. Displaced Revenue 0.00 0.50
• 5. Re-Evaluation Effect 0.00 0.20
• 6. Other Projects 0.00 0.80
• Total Cost per Revenue 1.17 3.75

28
County Costs per Revenue Commercial

• 2. Services Required 0.67 0.75
• 3. Infrastructure 0.50 1.50
• 4. Displaced Revenue 0.00 0.50
• 5. Re-Evaluation Effect 0.00 0.20
• 6. Other Projects 0.00 0.80
• Total Cost per Revenue 1.17 3.75

29
Practical Steps

• to Apply the Research Findings

30
Practical Steps

• Understand the county(Strengths Issues)
• Develop a vision of what is most important
• Ask the right questions

31
Clear Creek County
32
Clear Creek CountyMountains

• Setting
• Views
• Destination attractions include hiking, rafting,
  wildlife viewing,

33
Clear Creek CountyHistory

• Buildings
• Mine tours
• Georgetown Loop RR
• Historical Societies

34
Clear Creek CountyFour municipalities

• Separated by rural areas
• Unique / Differentiated
• Historic

35
Clear Creek CountyProximity to Denver

• Good because residents can easily reach urban
  facilities
• Good because Denver-ites can easily reach Clear
  Creek County
• Bad because we face urban growth pressures from
  Denver

36
Clear Creek County

• I-70

37
Clear Creek CountyHenderson Mine

• Accounts for Large of County Revenue
• But revenue varies widely year-to-year
• Depletion of ore body would result in significant
  loss of tax revenue

38
So what do we do after the Henderson Mine?

• Promote Development (won't work)
• Raise Taxes
• Reduce Services
• Defer Maintenance
• Develop a better Vision

39
The Seed of an Idea
40
Clear Creek County Natural AreasA Destination

• Recreation
• Adventure
• Tourism

41
DestinationIt Worked Before
42
Natural AreasRecreation

• Popular in Colorado
• Clear Creek County is Ideally Located

43
Natural AreasAdventure
44
Natural AreasTourism
45
Supporting Possibilities

• Education
• Arts
• Events

46
Supporting Niche Development

• Nature Centers
• Gift Shops
• Greenhouses

47
Considered Growth PrincipleBuild what fits with
what is already there

• Traditional Commercial Focused in municipalities
• Based on existing infrastructure and services
• Work with municipalities for Common Promotion
• Natural areas get low-impact growth that supports
  activities in nature

48
Strengths of Vision - Aesthetic
49
Strengths of Vision - Marketing

• Unique, Not Commodity
• Proximity to Denver
• Ride a Market Trend

50
Strengths of Vision - Financial

• Low Investment
• Low Cost
• Better return than Traditional Development

51
Conclusion A more sustainable vision for our
county

• Clear Creek County is special
• We need to base decisions on Reality, not Myths
• Growth and Development Dont Pay
• A Destination Vision is more Sustainable

52
Framework for Applyingto Every Development
Proposal

• 1. Does the proposal enhance the vision?
• 2. Will it contribute financially to the county?
• 3. Will it impede projects that will help the
  county?

53
Key Learnings

• Most Growth New Development projects cost the
  county more for services and support than they
  generate in new revenue
• Indiscriminate and unevaluated Growth
  Development is a strategy that will not help
  county finances
• Each development project needs to be measured on
  its own

54
Strategies for Clear Creek County

• Leverage what we have and what residents want
• Commercial Development should be focused inside
  existing municipalities, where there is already
  existing infrastructure and services
• Development in rural areas should
• Be low-impact,
• Promote the county as a destination with
  recreation
• Keeping natural rural separation between
  municipalities
• Institute a complete fiscal impact as part of its
  development review, and measure significant
  developments to confirm the total costs after
  completion