I got a copy of this, but I never heard them show up in public anywhere and talk about it. So, I’m randomly throwing this out there now, so people are aware of it before the Neighborhood Summit (Sat 9 – noon, Trinity Lutheran Church 1904 Winnebago) this weekend. The “Bill White Memo” is here. DMI recommendations here. Their less strident comments are here. Some of my ideas to think about are here.
The statement is as follows, the original, with all the typos which I tried to replicate below, is here.
In September of 2008, the Madison Common Council adopted a 3 – 5 [year] Economic Development Plan containing the following quote “Cities and economic development organizations do not create jobs and tax base, the create the climate and remove the barriers so that private and non-profit basic sector employers can create jobs and tax base.” The City of Madison development approval process is perceived to be complicated, cumbersome, overly time consuming and laden with requirements that are detached from market realities.
As the City continues to work on implementing the Economic Development plan, Smart Growth Greater Madison, an organization representing real estate developers and associated industries impacted by development in the Dane County, is requesting that the Economic Development Committee focus on eliminating barriers within the entitlement process, as well as creating opportunities to enable job creation and growth. The following recommendations encompass both process and partnership – addressing the issue of development approval through both tangible policy changes, and attitudinal cultural shifts on both sides of the desk.
1. Fundamentally improve the Madison Business Climate through Customer Service Initiatives. The first recommendation is drawn directly from the 3-5 Year Economic Development Plan. At the very core of improving the process, is the necessity to view business and development as customers who will potentially invest in the city. We cannot build partnerships if there continues to the perception that there is an adversarial relationship between business/development and the city, and it takes both groups to stay engaged in making those imrovements [sic]. Regardless of the outcome of the project approvals, a business owner or developer coming through the door should be treated with courtesy and respect given any customer. Other recommendations from the Plan included establishing customer service benchmarks, and creating a one-stop shop for developers. Organizational culture does not change overnight, and those within the organization must feel empowered to make those changes. This requires ongoing leadership from the Mayor’s office and the Common Council.
2. Economic Development tools, such as Tax Incremental Financing Policy should be transparent and accessible. Current TIF policy forces the Council to make more exceptions than following rules, and is detrimental to good policy when the exceptions are applied in some cases and not others. Municipal tools, such as TIF need to be transparent and usable. TIF policy could be simplified allowing for case by case decisions based on state policy. If the City has overarching policy goals, such as neighborhood revitalization or job creation, these could be delineated as priorities during each budget cycle, without tying the hands of decision makers regarding future proposals.
3. Canvass peer communities approval process. Compare the entitlement process of cities of similar size and demographics to see if we are truly an outlier. Do they have as many governmental bodies to navigate, how long is the average project from inception to fruition, etc.? Madison may be unique in its dependence on Planned Unit Developments (PUDS) as the zoning used for many larger projects. Does that have a significant impact on the time horizon for a project compared to the approval process for larger scale projects in other communities? The Zoning Code rewrite effort will have an opportunity to address the issue of dependence on PUDs, and perhaps will help streamline the approval process. Determining if our peer cities with more modernized codes have a more efficient development approval process provides indicators of the capacity for the new zoning code to improve efficacy without sacrificing quality.
4. Role of Neighborhoods/Stakeholders: Public input is a critical component of the development process. It is a required and important element of a good development. There is a wide variety of levels of neighborhood organization, however, many neighborhood associations have adopted neighborhood plans, often developed using city funding. The Common Council can then adopt these advisory plans. Although they are advisory, it is expected that serious consideration be given to a project’s compatibility with existing plans. It is critical, therefore, that all stakeholders in a neighborhood association using city resources to develop Common Council adopted plans have representation on the governing body of the association. These plans should also be routinely revisited, as the comprehensive plan is amended, and other unforeseen circumstances in the market or community arise.
5. Examine the role of various commissions and committees The modernization of the City Zoning Code includes the creation of required building forms and standards. The current Euclidean, or use-based, code does not include these standards. The Zoning Code Rewrite Advisory Committee was advised by the Cuningham Group consultants near the beginning of the process that this may lent itself to a reexamination of the role of the Urban Design commission specifically. It is also imperative that committees and commissions are clear on the scope of the purview, for the sake of both the commissioners and the applicants.
– Keep a regularly update “cheat sheet” of Planning and Zoning documents available online or in the Plan Department. There is a lack of clarity when it comes to what is advisory versus regulatory, which plan trumps what in the event of a conflict, and what the process is for making changes. One document with all the relationships laid out as simply as is practical would be helpful in clarifying and guiding applicants.
6. Require timely review of Existing Neighborhood, Corridor, and Comprehensive plans, as well as Local Historic Districts, and Urban Design Districts. Currently there is a lack of flexibility built into these districts, and they are not responsive to real world market conditions. Modifications may be necessary to keep plans in line with the needs of the City. These can be minor tweaks, major revisions, or the continuance of the status quo, as deemed appropriate by the land use approval body.
I didn’t have time to draft the responses to this, but I thought it was info people should have before the summit, so here it is!
That was a draft sent to members a few weeks back to get comments. We have not adopted any formal position yet. I don’t know what will make it in the final, what will be modified, etc. until the group votes later this week. Just wanted to make it clear this is a draft, which is why it hasn’t been talked about publicly.