1. High Growth Counties: Opportunities for Pinal County Pinal County Comprehensive Plan Curt Dunham AICP Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. Comprehensive Plan Update Consultant

2. Peer Counties Qualifications  Rapid growth over past 20 years  Impacted by one or more rapidly growing metro areas  Urban/agricultural/open space interface  Preservation issues  Bedroom community/commuting issues

3. Peer Counties Identified  Polk County, Florida  Cobb County, Georgia  Arapahoe County, Colorado

4. Polk County, Florida  County between Orlando and Tampa  Long established agricultural area (citrus)  Interstate 4 corridor (I-4)  Population 550,000  2,010 square miles – Florida’s fourth largest

5. Polk County, Florida

7. Polk County – Current Issues  Addressing transportation travel patterns  No dedicated funding source to address transportation issues  Prevent becoming a “bedroom” community  Create jobs near people

8. Polk County – Good Decisions  Updated Comprehensive Plan to include sub-areas  Economic development is tied to land uses – consultants used have economic development expertise  Planning to create a better mix of land uses and bring services and jobs near residential areas

9. Polk County – Preserving Agriculture  Strong public desire  Developed Polk County Land Stewardship Program – a consortium of different interests  Alliance built between agricultural interests and environmental interests

10. Polk County - Transportation  Travel patterns – Interstate, Disney World  Just entered into an agreement with Orlando transit to tie into and provide new transportation services

11. Polk County – Economic Development  County not able to do much and not asked to  Include economic elements in land use planning  Support private non-profit Central Florida Development Council

12.  Coordinate with other agencies through regional Municipal Planning Organization  Developed a county/city manager’s alliance that meets monthly  Much stronger collaboration to preserve long-term water supply Polk County - Collaboration

13. Polk County – In Hindsight  Should have developed a dedicated funding source for infrastructure and roads  Now working a lot more closely with other governmental entities—this should have happened sooner

14. Cobb County, Georgia  Suburban Atlanta area  Bedroom communities  Historic areas (created from Cherokee County, originally part of Cherokee Indian Nation)  Interstate 75 Corridor (I-75)  600,000 of 670,000 residents are not within municipalities (unincorporated county)  340.2 square miles

15. Cobb County, Georgia

17. Cobb County Issues  Regional transit and commuting  Need to expand transit and make better regional connections of the roadway system  Redirect growth  Protect “green space”

18. Cobb County – Good Decisions  Installed a sewer system for the entire county in the 1980s except where growth would be discouraged. Used infrastructure as a growth management tool and to protect water resources  Use of Community Improvement Districts to fund transportation projects  $4.1 million bond passed to begin to purchase green space

19. Cobb County – Issues  Small farms to residential  Industrial areas along I-75 are starting to change  Growing Latino population  Attempting to develop employment centers to balance growth (residential, employment, commercial)

20. Cobb County – Economic Development  Counties in Georgia have similar powers as cities:  Incentives  Economic development department  Very active in working with other entities and organizations, such as chambers of commerce, in attracting firms and jobs

21. Cobb County - Collaboration  House Bill 489 mandates intergovernmental cooperation  Developed service delivery strategy to minimize duplication and improve effectiveness

22. Cobb County – In Hindsight  Voted down mass transit in 1970s – still paying for it!  High costs of doing it now  Communities that did join have very high quality development around stations  Lack of mass transit systems added to commuting problems and congestion

23. Arapahoe County, Colorado  Denver Metro Area  35% urban,65% rural (urban population to the West, rural population to the East)  Interstate 70 Corridor (I-70)  Population 550,000  803 square miles

24. Arapahoe County, Colorado

26. Arapahoe County – Issues  State Land Department changing the rules  Urban Growth Boundaries under constant attack  Total dichotomy of attitudes between West and East County

27. Arapahoe County – Good Decisions  Worked to develop Urban Growth Boundary  Developed and stuck with Land Development Code  Use sub-area plans to plan for specific issues and needs

28. Arapahoe County – Agricultural Preservation  No dedicated funding  Public desire to maintain  No re-zoning of agricultural land  Use special districts – they have held up well

29. Arapahoe County – Economic Development  Not much of a role and not much pressure to do so  Support the South Metro Chamber of Commerce  Streamlined review process

30. Arapahoe County - Collaboration  Use a referral process  Proposal within 2 miles of any governmental entity are referred for review

31. Arapahoe County – In Hindsight  Should have completed Land Development Code sooner  Should have drafted plans to deal better with the changeover in leadership that will undoubtedly occur  Need to work to unify urban interests in the west with rural interests in the east

32. Opportunities for Pinal County  Stronger advocate for economic development  Integrate land uses with economic development concepts  Agricultural preservation  Open space preservation

33. Opportunities for Pinal County  Regional transit  Improved communication and collaboration – unifying communities  Creation of job centers to lessen commuting  Creation of dedicated funding sources and proactive fiscal policies

34. Opportunities for Pinal County  Develop plans that will withstand change  Act now, hesitation is very costly  Learn from others and make reasonable assumptions