Columns:: Review, revise, revisions: Task force chaired by Carl Vinson Institute revamps planning standards

Columns::October 14, 2002

Always and forever: Annual reunion celebrates good times, homecoming
Celebration of life: Memorial service for Eugene Odum scheduled for Oct. 16
UGA, consortium dedicate beamline at Argonne National Laboratory
President names search committee to identify candidates for provost
Taste of college life
Divergent paths
Vet med professor endures ‘trying’ times to complete his education
Retirees
Kudos
The world’s a classroom

Campus News

Review, revise, revisions
Task force chaired by Carl Vinson Institute revamps planning standards

By Ann Allen
allen@cviog.uga.edu

The Georgia Department of Community Affairs has just released proposed revisions to Georgia’s minimum standards for

Harry Hayes chaired the task force that developed new minimum planning standards for Georgia’s local governments. (Photo by Peter Frey)

local government comprehensive plans. The proposed standards are currently undergoing public review. The DCA board is scheduled to consider the revised standards on Nov. 13. If adopted, the standards will become effective January 2004.
Earlier this year, Laura Meadows, DCA commissioner, appointed a 22-member task force, chaired by Vinson Institute faculty member Harry Hayes, to review and recommend changes to the minimum standards. Hayes talked with Columns about the review, the first since enactment of the 1989 Planning Act.

Columns: What are local government requirements for planning?

Hayes: All of Georgia’s 688 local governments are required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan that meets minimum requirements in order to maintain their eligibility for a variety of funding-assistance programs. The system has three levels--local, regional and state--with a strong emphasis on the local level.

Columns: Who was on the task force?

Hayes: There were 22 members in the group, representing just about every area that would be related to planning--local government, regional and economic development, environmental interests, business and construction and the planning profession. There were also representatives from the academic community--Clark Atlanta University, Albany State University, the Georgia Institute of Technology. We met seven times over a seven-month period and used a facilitated process and a consensus approach.
The diversity of the group proved to be vital to our work. There were those members who were immersed in the technicalities of the planning process and others who could envision how a government official in a small community would have to administer the plan.

Columns: You’ve mentioned before that Georgia’s approach to planning is unusual. In what way?

Hayes: Georgia’s growth-strategies system was built from the bottom up--first local plans are developed, then regional plans, and then a state plan. This “bottom up” approach is fairly unique, but it reflects how Georgia has tried to balance state mandates with local autonomy. One of our final recommendations deals with further refining this tiering process.
Georgia’s counties and municipalities vary widely in their size, growth rates, level of public services, economic assets and natural resources.
While all of the minimum standards are being raised over the current levels, it did not seem fair for small counties, like Randolph or Lincoln, to have to plan at the same level as large urban areas, like Fulton or Gwinnett. Most of Georgia’s local governments are quite small. The smallest communities--like the 129 municipalities with a population of less than 1,000--have very limited technical and administrative capacity.
The task force wrestled with this concept and, while it was not unanimous, the consensus was that creating three levels was a desirable approach. It was felt that the larger, faster-growing communities would be better able to handle the growth they are experiencing if their planning standards are upgraded.
For example, transportation planning is a key part of a comprehensive plan for a growing community. The proposed revisions would create a new, separate transportation element, which intermediate and advanced level communities would be required to include in their comprehensive plans.

Columns: How about public participation?

Hayes: The current minimum standards require only two public hearings, one at the beginning of the comprehensive planning process and one at the end, when the local government is ready to submit the plan for approval. Task force members felt that just two public hearings may not present enough opportunity for meaningful participation from members of the community.
We are recommending that between the initial and final public hearings local governments in the intermediate and advanced planning levels offer additional opportunities for citizen participation. This could include formation of a citizens’ advisory committee, a community survey, posting progress reports on a special Web site, or an information booth at the local mall.

Columns: I understand a “visioning” component has been added.

Hayes: We are very excited about including this concept for the first time as a requirement. Visioning refers to a process local governments can use to develop a complete picture of what their citizens would like their community to be like in the future. Drawings and photographs can be very useful in helping citizens visualize alternative development patterns or styles they may want to pursue.