Land Use Forum
Archive
Land Use Articles
Multi-jurisdictional Planning Efforts Make Sense
For Many
Communities
by Tom Larson
As the 2010 deadline (the year in which all local land-use regulations must be consistent with a local comprehensive plan) draws nearer, more communities are joining with neighboring communities to take part in multi-jurisdictional ("MJ") planning efforts. Part of this growing interest is due to the state incentives for MJ planning, but communities are also finding that such efforts are resulting in many other unanticipated benefits. This article will provide an overview of MJ planning and its growing popularity in Wisconsin and discuss some options on how a MJ plan can be tailored to meet the needs of individual communities.
What is a MJ plan?
For comprehensive planning purposes, a "multi-jurisdictional plan is defined "as "two or more local governmental units participating in the development of a single comprehensive plan that covers the jurisdictions of those local governmental units which is adopted separately by each unit under s. 66.1001, Stats. A county comprehensive plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan if the county and two or more local governmental units located in the county participate and adopt the plan." (Wis. Adm. Code Sec. 48.02(10)) In other words, a MJ plan is a plan developed by two or more communities. Most MJ plans involve the county, but that does not have to be the case. A MJ plan may consist of a variety of different configurations including a city and a town, two or more towns, or a city and a village. In fact, the law does not even require the participating communities to be located next to one another.
A MJ plan is not required by state law. It is simply an option for communities that would like to plan in a more collaborative fashion. Because land-use issues often transcend political boundaries, this can be an effective way to deal with some of the more complex problems that affect multiple communities, a county, or an entire region.
As indicated above, the law requires each local governmental unit (regional planning commission, county, city, village, or town) working on the MJ plan to adopt the plan separately. This means that each of the communities involved in the MJ planning effort must sign off on the final plan. It is worth noting that this definition only applies to state comprehensive planning grants. Therefore, if a community wants to engage in a MJ planning effort and does not want to receive a state planning grant, it would not be required to meet these requirements. (Note: however, to be effective, the plan would have to meet the substantive and procedural requirements for a comprehensive plan.)
What are the benefits of MJ planning?
The benefits of MJ planning are numerous. First, MJ planning is cheaper. By joining together with other communities, the costs for planning consultants, educational materials, data gathering, printing, etc. can be shared, reducing the out-of-pocket expenses that a community would incur if it was engaging in a comprehensive planning effort by itself.
Second, the state gives a preference for state planning grants to MJ planning applications. The comprehensive planning grant process is competitive, with hundreds of applicants seeking a limited amount of funding available through state grants to assist in their local planning efforts. To encourage more cooperative planning, the state gives additional points to MJ planning applications, which results in a competitive advantage over non-MJ applications. Furthermore, the more communities that are involved in the MJ planning effort, the more points the grant application receives. For example, if a grant application includes the county and all towns, cities, and villages within that county, the application would receive more points than a MJ application that included only a small percentage of the possible communities in that county.
Third, MJ planning will hopefully encourage greater cooperation between communities on a variety of issues. Annexations, economic development, affordable housing, and highway
siting are examples of the many issues that are not confined by political boundaries and that often need to be addressed by neighboring communities. By planning together and discussing some of these prior to the time that a conflict has arisen, it is more likely that amicable solutions will be created or, at a minimum, those communities will have a better understanding of each other's positions.
Does participating in a MJ planning effort mean that a community gives up control over its own plan?
Absolutely not. Participating in a MJ planning effort does not mean that a community gives up its authority to another community or jurisdiction. Unless the community decides differently, a community participating in a MJ planning effort retains whatever authority it had prior to participating in the MJ planning effort.
Some concerns have been raised by towns that fear losing control over their own plan if they participate in a county-wide MJ planning effort. Although the comprehensive planning grant rules require each community to adopt the MJ plan, state law does not prevent communities from also adopting their own plan or amending their plan once it has been adopted.
What should a MJ plan look like?
A MJ plan can look any way the communities would like it to. State law does not require a MJ plan to look any particular way. The broad definition provides communities with great flexibility in developing a MJ plan that meets the needs of the individual communities.
Although the definition of a MJ plan requires all participating entities to adopt the plan, it does not preclude a community from developing its own plan that is subsequently made a part of the MJ plan. In fact, nowhere in this definition does it state that the plan has to be one document. A MJ plan could contain multiple documents or smaller plans that, when taken both individually and together, meet the statutory requirements for a comprehensive plan (contain the required nine comprehensive plan elements, adopted using the proper procedural requirements, etc.) so that each plan complies with the comprehensive planning law.
Using this approach, a county-wide MJ planning effort could result in individual comprehensive plans that are developed for, and adopted by, each participating town, city, and village, with the county and the participating local governmental units ultimately adopting all of these town plans together as the county comprehensive plan. For example, the county plan could recommend more general regional goals, objectives, and policies, while the municipal plans could apply these more specifically. The county could develop its plan first, followed by the municipalities, or municipalities could go first with the county following, or the county and municipal plans could be developed simultaneously.
This is only one example, but it provides an idea of how the law can be tailored to meet the individual needs and interests of each community or communities. This type of framework may make the towns more comfortable that they can each have their own plan that can be modified or changed in any manner (so long as it continues to meet the statutory requirements for a comprehensive plan) or at any time.
How many communities in Wisconsin are preparing MJ plans?
The popularity of MJ planning has grown steadily each of the three years that comprehensive planning grants have been available. In addition, a greater percentage of the planning grant awards are going to MJ applications (In 2001, 15 percent (11 of 71) of all grant awards were made to MJ applications; in 2002, 74 percent (17 of 23) of all grant awards were made to MJ applications).
As long as the state continues to provide incentives for MJ planning, it appears that the demand will continue to grow.
For more information on comprehensive planning, please contact Tom Larson
tlarson@wra.org.
Back to Inside This
Edition
Return to On-Line
Publications
Bush Administration Issues New Wetland Guidance
by Tom Larson
The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have issued new joint guidelines regarding the limit of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. The new guidelines are in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2001 decision in
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), which prohibited federal authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate isolated wetlands. The new guidelines are intended to address the uncertainties that have resulted from the court's decision.
Under the new guidelines, the federal government relinquishes authority over the regulation of isolated wetlands that lie wholly within one state and are not connected to other bodies of water. According to official estimates, such isolated wetlands total about 20 million acres and comprise approximately 20 percent of all wetlands in the continental U.S.. The guidelines require that all federal field personnel must get approval from Washington before asserting federal jurisdiction over any isolated wetlands.
Prior to SWANCC, the federal government claimed authority over all the nation's wetlands under the auspices of the migratory bird rule, which linked wetlands protection to the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, but its decision left in doubt the precise extent of federal wetlands authority over so-called isolated wetlands. In the two years since the high court ruling, several states have filled the breach by extending state protection over isolated wetlands contained in the state.
The new federal guidelines will likely have little effect in Wisconsin, which was one of the first states in the country to create its own regulations for isolated wetlands. Wisconsin's isolated wetlands regulations effectively gave the DNR authority to regulate any isolated wetlands that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers deemed were not covered under federal regulations.
Back to Inside This
Edition
Return to On-Line
Publications
Back to Top
|
