planned growth strategy - part 2, chapter 10 · friedmann resources planned growth strategy 281...

Section 3Urban GrowthManagement in Other Communities

281FRIEDMANN RESOURCES PLANNED GROWTH STRATEGY

10.1 Executive Summarys illustrated in this chapter, growth man-agement strategies have been successfully

implemented in numerous locations throughoutthe country. There are a number of commonal-ities, favorite techniques, and tools. What fol-lows is an executive summary of main lessonslearned and their potential applicability forAlbuquerque and Bernalillo County.

10.1.1 Common Growth Management Techniques

• Most frequently implemented are pro-grams that phase in growth by guiding thelocation and timing of new developmentbased on community plans. Some loca-tions have designated outside limits forgrowth. Consistent land-use, zoning, andfacilities plans are established to imple-ment the growth management principles.

• “Adequate Public Facilities” and “Concur-rency,” assuring that infrastructure arefunded and in place prior to new develop-ment, are also frequently utilized.

• Some locations purchase open space topreserve land from development, createrecreational land and trails, and form abuffer to neighbors.

• Locating growth where existing facilitiesand services are already in place is seenas the first step. Revitalizing downtownoften becomes an integral part of the plan.Funding or procedural mechanisms oftenare used to help redirect commercial andresidential development to the urban core.

10.1.2 Implementation Strategies

Legal

• The key to the success and consistency ofa growth management strategy is that itbecomes incorporated into the land-use,

zoning, or other sections of the MunicipalCode. Codification provides authority todesignate location and timing of growthand assures that development adheres toplans. It provides authority for plans toprevail in land-use decisions and, if appli-cable, sets up adequate public facilitiesstructure and operation.

• Intergovernmental agreements, e.g., be-tween a city and a county, are frequentlyused to assure consistency.

Planning

• Growth strategies are incorporated into aComprehensive Plan. Detailed sector,facility, and other plans follow. Plans areconsistent - the location, timing, and gen-eral development principles are laid out inthe code and Comprehensive Plan.

• Subplans are required and prevail forbuilding permit decisions. Constructionpermits are delayed until a sector plan isapproved.

• Interviewed locations stick to their plan. Ifa development proposes to go outside theplanned urban area, the ordinance wouldhave to be modified. Exceptions needcouncil approval or in some cases, voterapproval.

• Design standards are often incorporatedin the plans.

• A supply of affordable housing often slipsunless the city creates incentives or set-asides, e.g., fee waivers or tax rebates

Procedural

• Most locations require development to payits own way. Some use the CapitalImprovements Program as an incentive fordevelopment to locate in target areas.Others require developers to pay all costsassociated with new infrastructure, includ-ing offsite facilities (e.g., freeway ramps).

10.0 Growth Strategy TechniquesUsed in Other Locations

A

282 PLANNED GROWTH STRATEGY FRIEDMANN RESOURCES

• Impact Fees are often structured as anincentive to guide location to desired areas.

• On the whole the nineteen interviewedlocations determine the amount of landneeded for the next 10 years. They targetdevelopment first to locate in areas withexisting facilities and services; thenexpand to land contiguous to existingdevelopment and infrastructure. Theyphase in new areas or increase density inexisting areas as the urbanizing areas arebuilt out.

• Even if development pays for infrastruc-ture through “adequate public facilities”requirements or “concurrency,” new landto be developed is identified in a plan des-ignating timing and location of growthbecause the city is responsible for operat-ing and maintaining facilities and services.

• Frequently, downtowns and transporta-tion corridors are upzoned to create highdensity pockets as an alternative to build-ing in new areas. Transfer of DevelopmentRights from locations outside the urbaniz-ing area can be purchased and used forincreasing density in these areas.

10.1.3 Partnerships

• Most locations hold intergovernmentalagreements between the city and countyspecifying that urban growth and urbanservices locate within the city limits. Ifcounty land is to be developed, it isannexed to the city prior to development.

• Many locations involve citizens in shapingthe growth management plan principlesand neighborhood planning.

• Partnerships are created between regionalgovernments to diminish competition andprovide a more level playing field.

• Many cities have successfully revitalizedtheir downtowns or transit corridorsthrough public/private partnerships andincentives.

• Some cities purchase blighted land, makeimprovements, and sell it for redevelop-

ment. They are careful to use tax incen-tives and make investments that are likelyto produce a 10-year return on investment.

10.1.4 Positive and NegativeConsequences

• Housing costs did increase somewhat, butother factors were involved, such as theeconomic boom and desirability of thelocation. The increase in prices did notdampen the market. If people move tosurrounding areas seeking less expensivehousing, they receive fewer services andthe interviewees say this situation wouldhave occurred in the absence of thegrowth management program. Most loca-tions are beginning to foster affordablehousing programs through public incen-tives because they found that the marketis not constructing housing available tolow- and moderate-income families.

• Housing and jobs, on the whole, did notjump over the growth boundaries. If theydid, other factors were involved that wouldbe present in the absence of the growthmanagement program. As areas experi-ence economic expansion, people want tolive in the main urban area to be close toinfrastructure and jobs. Another key fac-tor is the widespread use of intergovern-mental agreements with the surroundingcounty designating location and timing ofurban growth. In some cases, there areregional agreements.

• Traffic did not seem to be affected bygrowth management programs. One loca-tion increased density in the downtown,and traffic increased as a result, but thisis seen as a livable consequence. Publictransportation is offered as an alternative.Interviewed locations have had mixedresults with increasing use of publictransportation. Some locations haveinstalled or are raising funds toward alight rail system. Use of alternative modesof transportation have not increased.

• In many cases, jobs have moved closer tohousing. The number and quality of jobs


seem to be unaffected by the growth man-agement program, except that desirableplaces to live become magnets for newbusinesses. Many interviewees said thatgrowth management has helped thembecome a more desirable place to live.Many locations have benefited from thehigh technology industry boom and cite theavailability of high speed Internet connec-tion (e.g., broad band cable) as an attrac-tion for business, especially downtown.

• Infrastructure has been able to keep bet-ter pace with growth. Almost all locationssay they now have a better handle on theirCapital Improvements Program budgetsand are able to build up infrastructure tolevel of service standards. Upkeep ofexisting and new infrastructure remains achallenge, but it is in much better shapethan would be the case if there were nogrowth management system in place.

• Locations that incorporated design stan-dards into their program are happy withthe results. More effort is made to createpedestrian friendly, “human scale” devel-opment that fosters a sense of communityand neighborhood character.

• Some areas took a long time to transitionto the new program when there was arush to get projects approved before therules changed.

10.1.5 Applicability to Albuquerque

• The characteristics of interviewed locationsvaried. Some were urban centers in abooming metropolitan area, while otherswere in agricultural areas. Some wereclose to other urban centers and starting tomerge. Some locations implementedgrowth management because state law toldthem they had to. Others were motivatedby residents who wanted to retain thebeauty and size of their town and did notwant to share in the cost of development. Ina sense, no location is in exactly the situa-tion of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.We are faced with different challengesbecause we do not have a state law requir-ing all urban centers to implement growth

management, we are not in a multiurbanarea with a growing number of high payingjobs; up until this point (mid-2000), wehave not been wired for the high technolo-gy boom, we have a large amount of openland with landowners eager to develop, weare not surrounded by agriculture, we donot have a large affluent population andsurplus economic resources, we have alimited water supply, we have a significantbacklog of rehabilitation and repair needson existing infrastructure, and we have nothad a consistent plan to follow.

• Albuquerque and Bernalillo County are atan important juncture. Many of theapproaches taken by other locations aretransferable to Albuquerque andBernalillo County. Developing a growthmanagement strategy can improve thequality of life and make it more attractivefor current residents and future business,provide more efficient public spending,and maintain a high quality of urban serv-ices. Financially, local governments cannot afford to be overextended with facili-ties and services. The Planned GrowthStrategy, Part 1 - Findings report estimat-ed $2.4 billion worth of rehabilitationrepair and deficiency correction on exist-ing infrastructure (public cost, DowntownScenario). Even if development pays forall new costs associated with extendingnew infrastructure and services, the cityand county will be responsible for opera-tion, maintenance and repair.

• Albuquerque and Bernalillo County couldcap fees or incentives or require a 10-yearreturn on investment. Infusion of publicfunds to redevelop blighted areas couldbecome a measured investment, in whichpublic money is seen as seed money tostimulate the private market investment.

• The growth management concepts imple-mented by other locations can be appliedto Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.The Planned Growth Strategy is takinginventory of current land and infrastruc-ture available to accommodate expectedpopulation growth. The Planned Growth


Strategy will also help assess the facilityand service cost of developing in differentlocations. The question lies in where toexpand and when. Albuquerque andBernalillo County could find success asdid the other locations by grouping newdevelopment around existing facilities andby planning new facilities and services inareas expected to absorb new growth in10-year increments. Concurrency require-ments could assist the city and county inassuring that facilities and services meetlevel of service standards. An agreementbetween the county and city would createa partnership rather than set up the par-ties as competitors for new growth.

• Albuquerque and Bernalillo County couldintegrate location, timing, and methodand level of service standards for newfacilities and services in the Land UseCode, Capital Improvements Program,Line Extension Policy, and DevelopmentProcess Manual. Building permits couldbe subject to these guidelines.

• Given that water is a scarce and increas-ingly costly resource, land-use planningand water resource planning could bemore closely linked. In addition, transferof water rights could be considered a con-dition of annexation.

10.2 Research MethodologyPlanners from nineteen locations were inter-viewed (interview form is attached in AppendixA and the list of locations in Appendix B).What follows is a draft summary of findingsfrom growth management approaches or “toolsin the toolbox” used by Cities and Counties inother parts of the country. The large amountof information collected is organized in differ-ent ways for quick review and comparison.

• Section 10.3 organizes findings accordingto major growth management issues raisedby the Planned Growth Strategy Manage-ment Committee. Each section covers atopic and objectives by summarizing howdifferent locations handled the challenge.

• Section 10.4 provides a city-by-city sum-mary of growth strategy techniques imple-mented, lessons learned, applicability toAlbuquerque and Bernalillo County, anddocuments on file and contacts/websites.

• Tables 61–64 (at the end of the chapter)summarize information in matrix form,location-by-location, and are organized inthree ways:

1. Response to questions of benefits and problems resulting from the growth man-agement program.

2. Demographic and statistical information; and

3. Growth management techniques andapproaches implemented;

This research task was originally divided intoeight growth management techniques:

1. Urban Service Areas/Tiered Growth;

2. Urban Growth Boundaries;

3. Transit-Led Infrastructure Planning;

4. Zoning Incentives;

5. Adequate Public Facilities Requirements/Concurrency;

6. Focused Public Investment Plans orProject Specific Capital ImprovementsProgram;

7. Infill and Redevelopment; and

8. Building Permit or Utility Hook-up Quotas.

As interviews progressed, the separationbetween techniques started to blur. Metrowidetechniques had commonalities and involved acombination of various tools depending on theobjective, situation, and point in time. Itcomes as no surprise that urban land-useplanning involves many considerations, suchas existing urban form, urban or rural charac-ter of surrounding areas, economic develop-ment, and local trends for population and eco-nomic growth. The other locations used pro-gram development processes similar to thoseused for the Planned Growth Strategy.


Techniques found in categories three througheight are viewed as useful program elements,but would not serve as long-term or metrowideprinciples. The best strategies seem to be onesthat are integrated into the municipal andcounty Land Use Codes and ComprehensivePlan. Statutory backing is key. Though instituted in ordinance and planning docu-ments, they also needed to periodically makechanges to achieve new objectives or addressunintended outcomes (usually accomplishedthrough the Comprehensive Planning process).Further, it appears that the concepts of “Urban Service Areas” and “Urban GrowthBoundaries” were the most commonly usedand were successful because they contained a

broad enough scope to accomplish metrowidegrowth management. Localities emphasizedthat these techniques are not necessarilygrowth controls or growth limits. Rather, theyare tools to foster responsible growth throughefficient use of land and limited financialresources.

The presentation of lessons learned from othercities is organized by issues and the “tools” toaddress them (see summary box on the nextpage). Keep in mind that the most successfulapproaches addressed these issues within thecontext of a metrowide Comprehensive Planincorporating detailed targeting of the locationand timing of growth.

This part of the analysis isstructured according to themain issues identified by the Planned Growth StrategyManagement Team.

10.3.1 Financial• Develop at no net expense

to the city or county

10.3.2 PlanningLocation and Timing• Identify target areas for cur-

rent development and phas-ing for future development

• Guide development to target areas

• Provide financial and proce-dural incentives to targetgrowth to defined areas

Zoning• Integrate design standards

into growth strategy plan-ning

• Change zoning standards tofit objectives, e.g., mixedused development on transitcorridors, increase density,etc.

Infill and Redevelopment• Encourage infill and

redevelopment

• Revitalize downtown

Affordable Housing• Encourage creation of

low- and moderate-incomehousing

Policy Documents• Incorporate land-use

policies into theComprehensive Plan

• Establish rules for deter-mining which developmentswill be approved or notapproved.

10.3.3 Legal• Establish ordinances to

back up the growth strategy

10.3.4 Facilities PlanningPublic Works and Capital Improvements Program• Base Capital Improvements

Program on ComprehensivePlan and growth strategy

• Coordinate water andwastewater extension withgrowth strategy

• Coordinate public worksplanning with growth strategy

• Coordinate transportationplanning with growth strategy

• Balance operation andmaintenance of existinginfrastructure with newconstruction

Transit• Encourage development

along transit corridors

• Enhance transit alterna-tives and ridership

10.3.5 Partnerships• Coordinate with the

county and neighboringjurisdictions

• Involve neighborhood and community planninggroups

10.3 Issue Analysis

How did other locations address these goals and objectives?


10.3.1 Financial

How did other locations address these financial objectives?

• Develop at no net expense to the city or county

San Diego, California In the early 1980s the“Facilities Benefit Assessment” ordinancecreated a method to distribute 100% of theactual cost of facilities to developers basedon the location, type, and size of the pro-posed construction. The financing plangoes 30 years into the future and isadjusted annually. The fee amounts varygreatly depending on location (e.g., urban-ized area with existing infrastructure ornew area with no infrastructure). TheFacilities Benefit Assessment is assessedfor each property and is attached as a lien,paid upon pulling a building permit. Off-site infrastructure supporting the develop-ment, such as freeway interchanges orcollector roads are also part of theFacilities Benefit Assessment. Because thetrue cost of facilities construction is builtinto the Facilities Benefit Assessment,location of development becomes depend-ent upon whether the market can supportthe cost rather than requiring or denyinglocation of development. (An average fee is$15,000–20,000, ranging from $5,000 inthe inner city to $29,000 where no facili-ties exist).

An alternative method in the suburbanareas is based on state legislation (Mello-Roos) that allows bonding of facilities. Thehome buyer pays a fee on their taxassessment for 20-30 years.

Lincoln, Nebraska Comprehensive Plan haslanguage in land-use plan to “protectexisting public and private investments inservices, infrastructure, and improve-ments by requiring new developments topay their “fair share” of public costs byanalyzing the costs/benefits of the devel-opments and consider the impacts on theCapital Improvements Program. No impactfee system. Extensions of utilities arenegotiated case-by-case in annexation

agreements. This process is less pre-dictable, and there can be large discrep-ancies in amounts paid. There is alwayscost sharing by developers, even when theproject is in the Capital ImprovementsProgram.

Fort Collins, Colorado Growth pays its “fairshare” through impact fees that coverroads, water/sewer, parks, schools, andgovernmental services to cover police, fire,libraries (approx. $15,000). The countyand city adopted a regional transportationfee to benefit the region. Facilities for newdevelopment are generally not in theCapital Improvements Program.

Carlsbad, California Each acre of vacantland is assessed with a “local facilitiesmanagement fee” established to pay forimprovements or facilities identified in alocal facilities management plan. The feemay also be used to pay for a portion identified in the citywide facilities andimprovements plan attributed to develop-ment. The fee is assessed to the propertyas a tax prior to development with a bal-ance due when the building permit ispulled.

10.3.2 Planning

How did other places address theselocation and timing objectives?

• Identify target areas for current development and phasing for futuredevelopment

• Guide development to target areas

• Provide financial and procedural incen-tives to target growth to defined areas

San Diego, California Market driven basedon impact fee. Impact Fees are lower withexisting infrastructure and higher wherenew facilities have to be built. Not permit-ted to waive impact fees by state law.

Lincoln, Nebraska Required by charter toinclude in the Comprehensive Plan.Comprehensive Plan examines growthtrends, estimates the number of residen-


tial and commercial units needed in thenext 10 years and determines what con-tiguous areas to annex and expand to.They do not build water or sewer linesunless it is in an area targeted to absorbthe expected amount of growth.

Fort Collins, Colorado Land Use policiesinclude: (1) Urban Growth Areas - norezoning or development applications areaccepted as part of an annexation petitionif proposed development is located outsidethe Urban Growth Area. They develop onlyin annexed areas. (2) Compact UrbanGrowth Policy - development is contingenton contiguity. 1/6 of the proposed develop-ment area must be contiguous with exist-ing development. (3) Agreement withcounty that adopted a cooperative plan-ning area policy in the City Plan thatincludes an urban growth area identifyingland-use policies (i.e., urban growthlocates in city limits, and developmentstandards). The agreement was adoptedin 1980 and is revised every couple years.(4) Adequate Public Facilities Manage-ment System - public facilities and servic-es necessary to support developmentmust be available concurrently with devel-opment. Facilities need to meet level ofservice standards for transportation,water, wastewater, drainage, emergencyservices, electrical power, and any otherpublic facility services required by the citybefore complete development review andissuance of building permit.

Austin, Texas An incentive system was de-veloped to reward development in targetedareas. A matrix provides a list of urbandesign elements, location specific criteriaand policy components to be scoredaccording to achievement of the city coun-cil’s goals. Filling out the matrix is volun-tary and can result in up to 100% waiverof impact fees and accelerated installationof infrastructure. A scoresheet assesseswhether a development project can receivefinancial incentives to encourage a partic-ular style, form, and location for growth toquantify measurement of the goals andpolicy direction as apply to projects.

Carlsbad, California Their ordinance tiestiming and location of development to theprovision of public facilities and improve-ments established by the citywide facili-ties plan. It also controls the timing andlocation of development by tying the paceto the provision of public facilities atCapital Improvements Program intervals.

King County, Washington Regional plan-ning body works together to identify whereto absorb projected housing and jobgrowth within the county.

How did other locations address these zoning objectives?

• Integrate design standards into growthstrategy planning

• Change zoning standards to fit objec-tives, e.g., mixed-used development ontransit corridors, increase density,establish Transfer of DevelopmentRights, etc.

San Diego, California To encourage transit-oriented development, they encouragemixed use and allow 18 dwelling units peracre on light rail, bus, or trolley lines.Parking requirements are reduced. Notpermitted to waive impact fees.

When the zoning system was seen as get-ting in the way of implementing growthmanagement policies, the zoning ordi-nance was overhauled to be more consis-tent with such policies

Fort Collins, Colorado Replaced perform-ance based zoning with a new Land UseCode in 1997. Rather than a point systemfor various criteria, the new code setsstandards to achieve compact develop-ment and design objectives. (Performancezoning allowed leapfrog developmentbecause it awarded points for contiguitybut did not require it). Design guidelinesare incorporated in the zoning code toencourage pedestrian friendly develop-ments with interconnected neighbor-hoods. The Code is based on feedbackfrom a community process on visual pref-erences (e.g., maximum block size, no


gated communities, discourage garagedominated development, sidewalks andsignage). Performance based zoningallowed flexibility but was less pre-dictable. Now they have prescriptive zon-ing that is more predictable but is lessflexible. Developers and neighborhoodsprefer more predictability but do not wanttotally traditional zoning.

Transfer of Development Units is a tool topull development away from areas thatare preferred to remain open space orrural and allow for higher densities in theurban core. It is not used for developingnew units.

New administrative process with hearingofficer. Developers wanted this in order toshorten processing time and remove frompolitical process. 60% of projects areapproved through administrative process.Neighborhoods approved this process ifcity raised the bar on design standards tomake it more prescriptive. The hearingofficer determines if criteria are met. Ifdevelopers want more discretion, they cango to the planning and zoning board.

Portland Metro, Oregon Zoning is specificand targeted for areas designated by theplan to conform to densities of 6, 8, or 10units per acre. Half of the zoning is toallow for multifamily housing. Density inthe central city has increased.

How did other locations address theseinfill and redevelopment objectives?

• Encourage infill and redevelopment

• Revitalize downtown

San Diego, California Downtown hasattracted substantial commercial develop-ment.

Lincoln, Nebraska Downtown has severaltarget areas. The Urban DevelopmentDepartment is a separate city agency thatcreates redevelopment plans using TaxIncrement Financing and CommunityDevelopment Block Grant funds. Comp-rehensive Plan states “The vitality of

downtown and of the surrounding neigh-borhoods are closely linked; those neigh-borhoods should be maintained andstrengthened as attractive and desirableresidential neighborhoods. Maximize theuse of existing public and private infra-structure… downtown.”

King County, Washington Urban growthboundary requires the larger cities toupzone to fit in the number of housingunits for the next 20 years of population,based on the assumption that there isenough opportunity to absorb this popu-lation through infill. Benchmark #30identifies 13 urban centers for increaseddensity (e.g., 15 du/acre).

Redmond is growing so fast that it couldnot get funding quickly enough from stateand federal governments to build ade-quate roads. A moratorium was put ondowntown Redmond unless commercialwas mixed with housing and that createdmixed use at the scale needed.

Austin, Texas To “restore community andvitality to the Urban Core by investing inthe City,” Austin provides Impact Feebreaks. The maximum incentive is set tobe equal to the total present value, over afixed period (5-10 years) of the incremen-tal increase in the property taxes accruingto the city as a result of project. Theamount of the incentive package caninclude waivers up to 100% of applicablefees, utility investments (at a 10-yearbreak even level), and the cost of plannedinfrastructure accelerated in time for theproject.

For instance, a 250 unit multifamilydevelopment downtown received between$250,000-$300,000 rebate in fees for an$18 million project. Other offsets couldinclude the city paying the bill to build1,000 feet of 16" wastewater line thatcould cost $1 million.

Tempe, Arizona The city works with neigh-borhoods on detailed strategic redevelop-ment plans with objectives such as mixed-use development and targeting parking to


areas which would not negatively impactneighborhoods. When an area is gettingblighted, the city buys up land and pre-pares it for private development. The Cityof Tempe has successfully involved itselfin the business of redevelopment. Yet thecity never invests in something for whichthey do not forecast an economic paybackin 10 years. Tax abatement and ImpactFee discounts are provided to help adeveloper leverage private money, but thebottom line is always kept in mind.Incentives are only provided if it appearsthat the developer could not make it workon his own.

The city partners with private developerson parking structures and helps make thebest day and evening use out of the space.Downtown created vitality and life 24hours a day because people live there andgo there for restaurants and entertain-ment as well as work. Tempe started theball rolling by providing incentives to amajor employer (America West Airlines) tobecome an anchor. They also have attract-ed high tech and software businessesbecause of their advanced cable system,and they plan to provide wireless capabil-ities so that people can access the Internetfrom anywhere in town, e.g., work on laptop while having coffee. They havebecome a high tech “hub” because ofthese capabilities.

How did other locations address theseaffordable housing objectives?

• Encourage creation of low- and moderate-income housing

San Diego, California No financial incen-tives. Allow reduced parking require-ments. Central city has overcrowding inhousing and schools.

Fort Collins, Colorado Impact Fees waivedfor affordable housing.

King County, Washington Benchmarkreports require each area to develop a cer-tain number of affordable housing units,

but there is no method to enforce this andthey are not reaching targets. Slowlystarting to be able to think as a regionalgroup for the whole county. Jurisdictionsare better able to set aside specific issuesto consider the region as a whole.

Boulder, Colorado Access to affordablehousing has suffered, so the code wasamended to allocate a portion of the limit-ed number of building permits available tolow- and moderate-income housing.

Tempe, Arizona Affordable housing hasbecome an issue, so they provide 100%Impact Fee discounts and other incentivesto promote affordable housing.

Portland, Oregon Half of all residential zon-ing is required to allow multifamily useand minimum density targets of six to 10units per acre are established for all juris-dictions in the region.

How did other locations include these growth management objectivesin policy documents?

• Incorporate land-use policies into the Comprehensive Plan

• Establish rules for determining whichdevelopments will be approved or notapproved.

San Diego, California Forty area land-useand subarea plans make up theComprehensive Plan. If developments arenot in a community plan, they have toseek a plan amendment and go throughplanning process. Then they are put in thefinancing plan. Financing identifies thefunding source and determines facilityand timing required and puts lien onproperty. Otherwise they can be deniedthrough the land-use process.

Lincoln, Nebraska City charter has includ-ed growth criteria since the 1950s.Provides legal basis and policy direction toinclude growth management in theComprehensive Plan. Requires develop-ment to occur within proximity to existing


boundaries and utilities. Charter requirescapital improvement expenditures to conform with Comprehensive Plan. Comp-rehensive Plan rewrites include redrawingboundaries of urban limit. Boundariespredicated on gravity sewer system.

Comprehensive Plan has phasing in theimplementation chapter. If a developmentis not in an area designated by the plan,they do not get a building permit.

Fort Collins, Colorado All major growthmanagement elements (i.e., urban growtharea, contiguous growth, agreement withcounty and adequate public facilities) areincluded in the Land Use Code. The LandUse Code is part of the Zoning Code andMunicipal Code. This carries more weightthan the Comprehensive Plan.

If the development does not follow theplan, the development does not getapproved.

King County, Washington County over-sees urban growth area plan that divideshousing and employment in the 39 citiesand draws urban growth boundaries.This plan is approved by the state and is implemented through individualComprehensive Plans. A Benchmarkreport provides guidelines for monitoringachievement of goals and objectives.

Lexington, Kentucky During Comprehen-sive Plan update process, they evaluated:should they expand urban growth bound-ary? If so, by how much? Where? Theplanning commission determined expan-sion was needed. Then they looked at themost reasonable places to allow expansionand developed detailed plans for thoseareas, including facility plans, exactions,affordable housing, open space/park ded-ications, and Transfer of DevelopmentRights.

10.3.3 Legal

How did other locations include thesegrowth management objectives in legalor statutory documents?

• Establish ordinances to back up thegrowth strategy

San Diego, California Facilities BenefitAssessment Ordinance created a method-ology to calculate and distribute actualcost of infrastructure to propertiesthrough liens and assessments. state leg-islation allows bond issues for infrastruc-ture to be paid back through propertytaxes. Cost Reimbursement Districts (sim-ilar to Special Assessment Districts) areallowed by state law which provides forcost reimbursement. The developer paysup-front for facilities large enough to servethe area and gets paid back from proper-ty owners.

Lincoln, Nebraska City charter has includ-ed growth criteria since the 1950s.Provides legal basis and policy direction toinclude growth management in theComprehensive Plan. Requires develop-ment to occur within proximity to existingboundaries and utilities. Charter requirescapital improvement expenditures to con-form with Comprehensive Plan. Compre-hensive Plan includes urban limit bound-aries.

Fort Collins, Colorado All major growthmanagement elements (i.e., urban growtharea, contiguous growth specifications,agreement with county and adequatepublic facilities) are included in the LandUse Code. The Land Use Code is part ofthe Zoning Code and Municipal Code.This carries more weight than theComprehensive Plan. An Intergovern-mental Agreement with Larimer County isestablished in the city’s Land Use Codeand adopts an urban growth area andrequires development to be within citylimits (through annexation).


King County, Washington The state passedlegislation in 1991 and 1992 requiringcounties to develop growth managementplans. If the legislative goals are notaddressed, state holds back road funds.County oversees urban growth area planwhich divides housing and employment inthe 39 cities and draws urban growthboundaries. This plan is approved by thestate and is implemented through individ-ual city Comprehensive Plans.

Boulder, Colorado Land Use Regulation isadopted by ordinance and is in the LandUse Code.

Carlsbad, California The Municipal Codecontains a growth management chapter inthe Zoning Title. An adequate facilitiesordinance requires development to followfacilities management plans and tiesbuilding permits to payment of facilitiesfees and timely installation of infrastruc-ture. The ordinance provides detail onexpectation for citywide and area infra-structure and gives the city authority todeny building permits until fees are paidand capital improvements are installedand operating to the required level of serv-ice standards. When the facilities man-agement plans were being developed, anordinance established a moratorium onbuilding until the plans were completed.

Oregon The state passed a law in 1973requiring cities to define urban growthboundaries separating areas intended fordevelopment from those expected toremain in agricultural or forest use.

10.3.4 Facilities Planning

How did other locations address these public works and CapitalImprovements Program objectives?

• Base Capital Improvements Program on Comprehensive Plan and growthstrategy

• Coordinate water and wastewaterextensions with growth strategy

• Coordinate public works planning with growth strategy

• Coordinate transportation planningwith growth strategy

• Balance operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure with newconstruction

San Diego, California City does not useCapital Improvements Program funds tobuild infrastructure for new developmentin the Developing Urban Area. It is veryrestricted in its ability to keep up withoperation and maintenance with limitedfunds. Development Impact Fees pay forall facilities. But constraints on timing ofuse of funds can prevent accumulatingenough to build certain facilities, e.g.,parks or fire stations. If certain facilitiesare not being built, e.g., parks, becausethe area is not built up enough to collectenough Impact Fees to build a park, thecity tells developers they can not buildmore houses in the area until they haveenough to produce parks. This motivatesdevelopers to collaborate. The developerfinds a way to get the facility built, e.g.,fronts the cost and the city reimbursesthem as they collect funds from futuredevelopment.

Lincoln, Nebraska Capital ImprovementsProgram is based on the ComprehensivePlan and all facility extensions areplanned through the Capital Improve-ments Program. If an area is shown in theComprehensive Plan, the city will subsi-dize some portion of sewer and waterthrough the Capital ImprovementsProgram.

Fort Collins, Colorado Adequate PublicFacilities Management System - publicfacilities and services necessary to sup-port development must be available con-currently with development. Facilitiesneed to meet level of service standards fortransportation, water, wastewater, drain-age, emergency services, electrical powerand any other public facility servicesrequired by the city before complete devel-


opment review and issuance of buildingpermit.

In the 1970s, before an intergovernmentalagreement with Larimer County, FortCollins, Colorado tried using extension ofwater and sewer as a tool to control thelocation and rate of growth. The countycommissioners wanted growth and devel-oped special water and sewer districts cir-cling the city boundaries. As a result,sewer and water is available in all of thecurrent urban growth boundary.

Operation and maintenance funding is aproblem because Impact Fees can notcover this and though private developerspay for new construction, it adds to bur-den of city operation and maintenance.

King County, Washington Cities linkComprehensive Plan to Capital Improve-ments Program. Have to locate withinurban growth area.

Lexington, Kentucky A subdivision outsidethe urban growth boundary had septicproblems that had to be alleviated by thecity extending a (narrow) sewer line. Thecity did not allow development of theintervening 500 acres of properties tohook into the sewer line because it wasinstalled to ameliorate a problem, it wasoutside the Urban Growth Boundary, andit was not sized to safely accommodatemore capacity. 20 years later, the city isgrowing in that direction and will expandthe system. The subdivision with septicproblems paid for the sewer extension andnew developments will pay for the currentexpansion.

Boulder, Colorado The “blue line” wasadopted by popular vote in 1960. The lineis drawn around the city at points averag-ing 400 feet above the city’s elevation(5,350) and proposed that developmentstay below it. The reasoning was thatwater should not be pumped uphill fromthe reservoir.

Carlsbad, California An adequate facilitiesordinance requires facilities and servicesto be available concurrently with develop-

ment. Assessments on each vacant prop-erty cover infrastructure needed for thatparcel as well as the pro-rata share forfacilities shared citywide. A portion of thedevelopment fees is put in a set-asidefund that finances Capital ImprovementsProgram projects for citywide improve-ments.

How did other locations address thesetransit objectives?

• Encourage development along transit corridors

• Enhance transit alternatives and ridership

San Diego, California Voters approved aone-half cent sales tax to fund transporta-tion. One-third used for highways, 1/3 forstreets and 1/3 for transit. Needs to berenewed 2007. They developed a light railline and have expanded the lines to covermore of the city. They have not yetachieved the objective of a citywide transitprogram to create high density and mixed-use development along transit lines ornodes.

Fort Collins, Colorado Transit tax lost lastballot initiative.

King County, Washington Regional organi-zation in Puget Sound called “SoundTransit” planning to have light rail on theI-5 corridor from Everett to Tacoma.Though Benchmark plan indicates upzon-ing for centers of larger towns, they arenot necessarily identifying transit corri-dors.

Austin, Texas The smart growth systemrewards transit friendly development inadvance of light rail funding and installa-tion. The voters will help determine ifAustin will invest in a $700 million lightrail system.

Portland Metro, Oregon Instead of con-structing a new freeway, the region invest-ed in a light rail system. Higher densitydevelopment is required in urban areasand around transit stations.


10.3.5 Partnerships

How did other locations address thesepartnership objectives?

• Coordinate with the county and neighboring jurisdictions

• Involve neighborhood and community planning groups

San Diego, California Forty communityplanning groups advise planning commis-sion for their area.

Lincoln, Nebraska The city has an agree-ment with the county that all the urban-type development will happen within thecity limits.

Fort Collins, Colorado An intergovernmen-tal agreement with Larimer County isestablished in the city’s Land Use Code. Itadopts the urban growth area andrequires development to be within citylimits. All urbanized land will be annexed,and to be annexed, the proposed develop-ment must be contiguous. The countyrealized that with a growing population,they needed to supply urban servicessuch as police, street maintenance, airpollution, etc., and could not afford it.

Created voluntary body of regional man-agers along the I-25 corridor. They decid-ed not to merge into a large metro areaand created policy of open space commu-nity separators. There is regional concernabout the inconsistent quality of develop-ment along the corridor, and they aremoving toward regional land-use guide-lines. Also moving toward concept of rev-enue sharing to avoid competition forsales and property tax. Fort Collins,Colorado perceives that they would havethe most to lose, though, because they arethe largest.

King County, Washington State requirescounty and Cities to work together tomake a plan. The City of Seattle did nottrust King County to make the plan sothey created a Growth ManagementPlanning Council made up of caucuses

dividing 39 cities into thirds (now fourths)by population. The Planning Council has15 elected officials. The city did not have confidence that the recommenda-tions of the Growth Management PlanningCouncil should only go to the countycouncil (because of a fear that they wouldchange the boundary lines) so the cityinserted a process for the city to ratify itafter the county council, and finally it goesto the other cities for ratification (need 2/3 ). Private sector and environmentalistsnervous about the county agreeing todraw line and “lock up land resources.”They created a benchmark document thattracks achievement of countywide policy.The Benchmark report took one year tocreate and covers economic development,environment, land use, affordable hous-ing and transportation. 1 If a city does notfollow their Comprehensive Plan, they canbe brought before a state “Growth HearingBoard.” King County planning office heldnumerous public meetings and subcom-mittees to “draw the lines” and assesspotential impacts.

Lafayette, Kentucky Benchmark reporttook one year to create and covers eco-nomic development, environment, landuse, affordable housing, and transporta-tion.

Austin, Texas The Smart Growth Initiativewas developed by a subcommittee of theAustin city council in conjunction with alarger Focus Group drawn from theAustin community. The concepts found inthe Smart Growth Initiative were original-ly described by the Citizen’s PlanningCommittee beginning in 1994. TheCommittee was comprised of civic leadersappointed by the city council to examineissues of growth and development in theAustin area.

Boulder, Colorado Boulder has had anagreement with the legal standing of acontract with Boulder County about loca-tion of urban growth since 1970. BoulderValley works together as a region, plan-ning land use through the ValleyComprehensive Plan since 1978. Only the


city provides water and sewer services, sodevelopment occurs within city limits.

San Diego, California The area is growingso fast that the region is working togetherto distribute projected population to dif-ferent areas and project constructionneeded to meet future demands.

Portland Metro, Oregon The regional plan-ning body, Metro, undertook a survey ofcitizens’ attitudes, conducted stakeholderinterviews and workshops, convened tworegional conferences, and mailed outnewsletters and other surveys to deter-mine the issues important to citizens.They found that people liked their neigh-borhoods, open space, and natural set-ting, but disliked traffic congestion andrapid growth. Sixty percent of telephonesurvey respondents believed that theregion’s quality of life would deteriorate.People favored investing in transit overroads, providing a wide choice of livingenvironments, and focusing growth indeveloped areas.

What unanticipated impacts occurred as a result of the growth managementprograms?

San Diego, California They have both morecrowding in the inner city as well as peo-ple commuting from long distances.

Fort Collins, Colorado Requirement for 1/6of land to be contiguous can create prob-lems if interpreted literally because thenext property over can not develop if theintervening property owner is not interest-ed in building. They are concerned that itmay drive up the price of land with 1/6 con-tiguity. Other unintended consequenceshave resulted since the 1997 plan, so thecode will be revised.

King County, Washington Slowly, they arestarting to think regionally. Jurisdictionsare better able to set aside specific issuesbeyond their own town and consider theregion as a whole. Because they lacksophisticated GIS, they will not revisitboundaries for 10 years.

10.4 Analysis by LocationWhat follows is a location-by-location summa-ry of approaches taken by cities and countiesin other parts of the country. Interview resultsand literature findings are boiled down forquick review and comparison. GrowthManagement findings for each interviewedlocation are analyzed by the following topics:

• Growth Strategy Techniques Implemented

• Lessons Learned

• Applicability to Albuquerque

• Planned Growth Documents on File

• Website and Contact Person

Though different locations implemented a vari-ety and combination of techniques, theyseemed to have some common threads. Forinstance, a metrowide effort could not beaccomplished through use of piecemealapproaches or tools with a narrow purview.Though the literature cited approaches suchas “Transit led infrastructure planning” or“Building Permit Quotas,” few if any locationsused these tools as long-term or metrowideguiding principles. This research effort startedwith eight separate categories to establish ifconcepts beside the Urban Growth Boundaryor Urban Service Areas were successfullyimplemented to guide growth and develop-ment.2 As interviews progressed, the categoriesbegan to blur and Urban Growth Boundariesand Urban Service Areas stood out as mostcommonly utilized in an effective and compre-hensive manner. The other categories wereoften used as tools to achieve the growth man-agement goals.


This section examines the following questions.

• What growth management solutions didthese locations seek?

• What types of planning tools were used?

• How did they structure incentives andrequirements to achieve their objectives?

• Where did the impetus come from?

• Are their lessons transferable toAlbuquerque?

Findings in the next section are organizedalphabetically by the locations interviewed.

10.4.1 Austin, Texas

Growth Strategy Techniques Implemented

• Urban Service Areas

• Public purchase of land to preserve Open Space

• Voluntary program to apply for Impact Fee discounts

• Capped fee incentives for meeting location or other criteria based on program objectives

• Incentives for downtown development

• Encourage development pattern anticipating transit

Austin’s Smart Growth Initiative is designed toinvest in existing areas and decrease sprawl.Austin uses a combination of tools based onUrban Service Areas boosted by Impact Feeincentives. The Smart Growth program waspreceded by and based on an environmentalprotection program to preserve the aquifer andfragile habitats. An appointed citizen planningcommittee worked with the city council todevelop guiding principles of the Smart Growthprogram. A map shows zones defining wheredevelopment should occur. Zones, such as theDesired Development Zone and WaterProtection Zone are driven by water protection.In general, Texas does not have zoning outsidecity limits, so an urban growth boundary con-cept is not applicable. The city spent $105 mil-lion in the last three years ($200 million in thelast 10 years) purchasing land to preserve itfrom development. They created a noncontigu-

ous green belt of parks with endangeredspecies habitat and aquifer protection areasaround the “Development Zone.” Impact Feesare scaled according to central location. Anincentive system was created to reward devel-opers with reduced fees for projects that meetgoals. Goals include location in desired devel-opment zone (downtown gets the biggestbreak). Developers can voluntarily fill out amatrix to qualify for financial incentives.Based on criteria outlined to help achieve poli-cy goals set by council, a score sheet is used toassess whether a development project canreceive financial incentives to encourage loca-tion, form, or style. Identified areas are encour-aged to grow in a transit friendly manner toprepare for light rail. No light rail transit existsnow—a referendum will be on the November 7,2000 ballot. An estimated $700 million isneeded for a 15-mile line through downtown.

The city protects itself from providing incen-tives that surpass potential property taxincome. A maximum development fee waiver iscalculated for each project to equal the esti-mated property tax revenue expected for 5 or10 years. That amount establishes the maxi-mum incentives (fee waivers), from a variety offees, such as for permit application, capitalrecovery, wastewater, development, or impactor building permit fees. Property tax relief isnot provided, rather its equivalent is providedas incentive through fee waivers. Anotherincentive can be infrastructure improvements(e.g., upgraded water lines). If infrastructure tosupport that project is included in a long-rangeCapital Improvements Program, the city canaccelerate construction (e.g., move it from yearfive to year one).


Lessons Learned

To preserve and build up downtown, Austinprovides financial incentives for development,aimed at redirecting construction that other-wise would locate in suburban areas. The“Smart Growth Matrix” is designed to quantifywhether development follows the goals andpolicy direction of the council. Calculation canbe complex, but since it is voluntary and pro-vides a significant financial advantage, thedevelopment community has not complained.

To encourage infill, Impact Fee waivers areallowed. An economic development propertytax incentive is offered to businesses doingmore than 50% export and creating jobs. Toprotect the city from providing excess abate-ment, the maximum incentive for waiving feesis set to be equal to the total present value,over a fixed period (5-10 years) of the incre-mental increase in the property taxes accruingto the city as a result of project. The amount ofthe incentive package can include waivers upto 100% of applicable fees, utility investments(at a 10-year break even level), and the cost ofplanned infrastructure accelerated in time forthe project.

They are planning in advance for transit-ori-ented development even though they do nothave funding in place.

Applicability to Albuquerque

Austin is a large city. Texas law does not allowzoning outside of city limits. Land use planningis motivated by protecting the fragile environ-

ment and aquifer within city limits. Austin hasmore financial resources than Albuquerque.

The concept of desired development zones orurban service areas are applicable to Albu-querque. Austin used an incentive program toentice development downtown and to othertarget areas, as well as attract business to tar-get locations. The procedure benefits develop-ers in that it is voluntary and not a require-ment. By calculating potential property taxreturns from a new development and cappingthe fee waiver to that amount, the city protectsitself from providing more incentives than canpotentially be gained. Albuquerque has raisedfunds through its open space portion of thegross receipts tax to purchase land for preser-vation. The tax could be renewed and targetedto creating a linked open space reserve forrecreational trails, and aquifer and habitatpreservation.

Planned Growth Documents on File

Smart Growth Criteria Matrix, Map ofDevelopment Zones, Smart Growth Q & A

Website and Contact Person

www.ci.austin.tx.us/smartgrowth

Austan Librach, Director Planning, Environmental and Conservation Services Department, [email protected]

George Adams, Smart Growth Planner, 512-499-2146 [email protected]

10.4.2 Boulder, Colorado


• “Blue Line” limits water service to elevation400 feet higher than reservoir (1958)

• “Danish Plan” set up a competition for lim-ited number of building permits (1976)

• Revised Plan limits growth to 1% (approx.400 units). If demand exceeds supply,building permits are allocated as fractionalportions. (1995)

• City and county have a joint agreement(contract) (1970)

• Regional (85 sq. mi.) Comprehensive Plan (1978)

• Urban Service Areas defined for both the city and Valley (region)

• Public purchase of land surrounding the city to retain as open space

• Charge new development for the full cost of services

• Transfer of Development Rights to increase density

Since 1976, Boulder has implemented a fewiterations of growth management based on abuilding permit quotas and performance basedapplications to achieve limits on growth and totarget growth to desired locations. The first planin 1976 responded to a voter initiative. Buildingpermits were capped at a 2% increase in popu-lation. Projects competed for the limited numberof building permits using a point system basedon criteria such as proximity to urban services,design, provision of moderate-income housing,and energy conservation features. The intergov-ernmental agreement established in 1978requires the county to approve any changes tothe Comprehensive Plan, annexations, andCapital Improvements Program proposed by thecity. As a result, the city and county reviewgrowth proposals put forth by the other. Thecounty reinforces the urban services area by lim-iting rural growth and by not providing urbanservices or facilities.

In 1981, the system changed to a portion ofpermits provided on a first come, first servedbasis until the number of permits reached atrigger point, when it switched to the competi-tion based system. Population growth was stillcapped at 2% per year. In 1984, the councilrevised the ordinance to simplify the system toaddress the problem of complex applicationmaterials, extensive staff needs, and PlanningBoard review time. The third ordinance allo-cated permits quarterly. If demand exceededsupply, (which it almost always did), the appli-cants receive prorated shares of building per-mits up to a maximum per development. Twomajor changes were adopted by the city coun-cil in 1995. First, the number of new residen-tial units eligible for permit was reduced to 1%of existing housing stock (equal to approxi-mately 400 units/year). Second, available allo-cations were divided into pools). Units foraffordable housing are set aside in a separatepool and very low-income units are exemptfrom needing an allocation to address the con-cern that new housing is not affordable to thecity’s workforce. The criteria for location, mod-erate-income housing, and energy conserva-tion were translated to performance standardsapplied to all new development. Though prima-rily a city effort, the city and county jointlyadopted a Long Range Comprehensive Plan.The city divides the limited building permitsinto “allocations.” In order to build a residen-tial unit, a developer must obtain an allocationequal to one unit (single family or one unit of amultifamily development). Developers applyquarterly for allocations. If requests outweighsupply, allocations are divided among allrequests into fractions. It can take severalyears to accumulate enough allocations tobuild out a planned development.

Urban service areas distinguish urban andnon-urban land. Area I (19 sq. mi.) has the fullrange of urban services and higher densities(25-30 units/acre). Area II (7.5 sq. mi. in thecounty) is targeted to be annexed and receivecomplete services within 3 to 15 years. Area III(59 sq. mi.) is not projected to have urban serv-ices for at least 15 years.



Beginning in 1967, the City of Boulder imple-mented a 0.4% permanent sales tax to supportan open space program (it subsequentlyincreased to the current 0.73%). With totalprincipal expenditures of $128 million andcurrent annual revenues of about $17 million,the program has bought almost 29,000 acres(average $4,452 per acre). When coupled withpark lands, water treatment protection areas,and county Open Space, almost two-thirds ofthe Boulder Valley is held in protected status.Most of the open space lies outside the city lim-its and is bigger than the city itself by nearly20%. Boulder has successfully created abuffer between it and nearby Denver.

The city has reached 90% of residential and75% of non-residential buildout under itsComprehensive Plan. Ultimately, aside from648 acres in Area II (the remaining unannexedservice area), and 400 acres in the PlanningReserve area set aside under theComprehensive Plan, the city intends to pre-serve all of the remaining open lands that canbe preserved within the Boulder Valley plan-ning area. The Open Space Program has purchased all water rights available with eachland purchase. A study concluded that all the policies working together (Blue Line, theOpen Space Program, the Boulder ValleyComprehensive Plan, and the Danish Plan)created the effect of going from a 25-yeargrowth rate of 5% to 1% annually (limiting res-idential growth in the city to 450 building per-mits per year).

Transfer of Development Rights allows a devel-oper to purchase development rights from a“sending” site in an effort to preserve agricul-tural and open space land in the county. ATransfer of Development Rights acts as an allo-cation.

Lessons Learned

Boulder’s residents have been the driving forcefor growth controls since 1958. The impetuscame from a voter referendum in 1976 limitinggrowth to 2%. Residents continue to assertpressure to limit growth.

A failed effort at growth management resultedfrom a program in the 1960s using a conceptcalled “spokes of the wheel” with the center ofthe city as the hub and new development wasto be directed along major corridors to villageson the periphery. An annexation program wasto be the way to control growth outside its bor-ders. But it resulted in leapfrog developmentcentered on an IBM plant and a housing sub-division built in the mid-1960s. The city lost alawsuit and was forced to extend water andsewer to the subdivision even though it lay out-side the city limits and refused annexation.The court said that a public utility could notrefuse water and sewer services in the area ofits jurisdiction because the proposed develop-ment would be inconsistent with the city’sgrowth policies.


Boulder is a more affluent city and region andis located in a more mountainous area withmore natural boundaries. Close to Denver, itresists becoming part of its metropolitan area.Boulder’s residents are involved in the growthdialogue and voted in referendums to limitgrowth to 1%.

Applicable lessons include the identification ofurban service areas (Area 1 as urban, Area 2as short term urbanizing, and Area 3 as long-term future urban). Preservation of openspace at the outset retains land and view cor-ridors for recreation and habitat preservation.It has served to attract new business becausethe area is more desirable. The land could besold off if that is allowed in the land trustagreement. The Growth Management PolicyAgreement between the City of Boulder and thecounty and region states that urban develop-ment will be contained in the city limits andprovides consistency, cooperation and collabo-ration so that competitive forces do not usurpthe plan. Albuquerque can learn fromBoulder’s experience that an annexation pro-gram alone is not a long-term growth manage-ment solution. The city ended up supportingwater and sewer in unintended areas outsidethe city limits.



Land Use Code found atci.boulder.co.us/cao/brc/brc1981.htmlTitle 9: Intent and Scope

Residential Growth Management Summaryhttp://www.ci.boulder.co.us/cao/x-opn-srl.html From Lefthand to Coal Creek:

Boulder’s Open Space Program, 1999 byJoseph N. de Raismes III, Boulder CityAttorney, 1979-present.


Brent Bean, Senior Planner [email protected]

10.4.3 Carlsbad, California


• Adequate Public Facilities required prior to development (1986)

• Level of service (performance) standardson 11 facilities

• Defined boundaries of 25 local facilitymanagement zones (similar to urban service areas)

• Facility cost prepaid as tax assessment on vacant land, balloon at permit

• 5 subarea plans developed between property owners and city includingdetailed financing mechanism for provision of public facilities.

A growth management plan was adopted in1986 as a composite of two ballot measures(one citizen and one preemptively by the city).The Growth Management program is includedin the Municipal Code, Title 21, Chapter 21.90.As directed by the 1986 Proposition, the planrequires that public facilities and improve-ments be available concurrently with newdevelopment. It also controls the timing andlocation of development by tying the pace tothe provision of public facilities at CapitalImprovements Program intervals. The city isdivided into facilities management zonesrequiring a plan for each zone (plans are paidfor by property owners, even if the city pre-pares the plan). Eleven categories of facilitiesand services (ranging from sewers to openspace) with performance standards are estab-lished.

Carlsbad learned from San Diego’s experienceand takes a slightly different approach. In SanDiego, the Facilities Benefit Assessment is col-lected when the building permits are pulled.As a result, funding for some services may lagbehind until build-out. Carlsbad calculatesfacility impact assessments for each parcel ofvacant land in an area slated for development.They know the facility cost for each acre ofvacant land (rather than by dwelling unit) andcollect assessments as an annual tax from theproperty owner, even if they do not plan tobuild at the moment. Upon construction, theypay the balance of the assessment when theypull a building permit. Since assessments arepaid even before the land is developed, fundsare set aside to support facilities in the areaand the burden is not on the “first one in” toput in facilities, nor do they have to wait for the“last one in” to build supporting facilities suchas parks. This method creates predictabilityand a level playing field, and guarantees thatsufficient resources will be collected to pay forall facilities. Density is established through ageneral plan, not by zoning. In Carlsbad’s case,all land is designated for urban development.Facilities are planned at either the quadrantlevel or in 25 subareas. Financing plans arecreated for each area and are negotiatedbetween the developers and city. Landownershire an engineer and economic team whodevelop a draft facilities plan and the cityreviews it. If the landowner refuses to do aplan, the city develops one and charges thelandowner on the assessment. Collectivelyused facilities, such as roads and even freeway interchanges, are prorated into theassessments and help fund the CapitalImprovements Program. Proposition 13 in


California pressures Cities to have develop-ment pay its own way.3

Lessons Learned

A general planning question is: Who shouldpay for new development?—the developer,passing costs through to future residents orthe community at large. Given their con-straints (Proposition 13) Carlsbad decided thatdevelopment should pay its own way.

Carlsbad passed an ordinance providing amoratorium on building permits until the facil-ity plan for the zone was completed. Level ofservice standards were developed by the cityfor 11 facilities and are built into facilityassessments on properties. If any part of theinfrastructure fails to meet standards, theyhold off on development until it is fixed.

The San Diego County region is growing sofast, they are running out of land to place pro-jected growth. They do not want to extendinfrastructure out to the desert in the westbecause it is inefficient to serve outlying areas.

Housing has not jumped over the growthboundary because there is a regional consen-sus on growth. Employment is growingbecause they are a desirable place to live. Theyhave an economic development strategyincluding determining how many miles of fiberoptic cable to lay and now have attracted hightech business. After some initial resistance,builders and landowners now say they like thesystem because it is predictable and rationaland they know capital facilities and infrastruc-ture will be available and what the costs are.


Carlsbad is a very affluent town on the Coastjust north of San Diego. They have moremoney to work with and land prices canabsorb the cost for facility assessments.

Albuquerque could implement facility manage-ment zones and plans. The cost of infrastruc-ture for areas designated as urbanizing couldbe calculated and placed as an assessment onthe vacant parcels slated for development toaccumulate funds for capital improvements.Carlsbad’s procedure and ordinance could be auseful guide for Albuquerque’s policy develop-ment.


Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan 1986

Growth Management, Code Chapter 21.90 Community Development Fees,September 1998

Development Monitoring Report, December 1999

Managing Growth Brochure


Dennis Turner, Principal Planner (760) 602-8559 [email protected]

Jim Elliot, Financial Administrative ServicesManager [email protected]

Website with Municipal Code: www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us city hall, municipal code orhttp://ordlink.com/codes/carlsbad/DATA/TITLE21/Chapter21.90 GROWTH_MAN-AGEMENT_21_90.html


10.4.4 Flagstaff, Arizona


• Urban Service Boundaries (1980)

• Intergovernmental agreement

• Regional agreement

Lessons Learned

Flagstaff’s Urban Service Boundary is smallerthan its city limits. Because the area is moun-tainous, it is difficult and costly to supplywater at higher elevations, even if annexed.About 3 years ago, they joined with CoconinoCounty and the National Forest Service, StateLand Dept, US Game and Fish, National ParkService to develop a “greenways and develop-ment” plan. The plan designates land fromprimitive to urban. This partnership helps pro-tect the city’s plan from being undermined bygovernment agencies (who own a substantialamount of land in the city) from selling off landfor development in non-urban service areaplan locations. Currently, they are finishingup a regional plan covering 525 square miles(city covers 65 sq. mi.) to designate urban andrural growth boundaries to prevent jurisdic-tional turf wars.

Flagstaff has a significant amount of publicforest land. People were coming from Phoenixto get away from the heat. Flagstaff adopted aplan to protect wilderness and open spaceland. Lands next to currently developed landare called “neighborwoods” and designated asrecreation areas.

The idea for the Urban Service Boundary camefrom a city planner concerned about the situa-tion of land and water. Flagstaff is the first city

and county in the state to do regional plan-ning. They are currently setting up ruralgrowth boundaries and urban growth bound-aries to prevent jurisdictional turf wars. Theregional plan covers 525 square miles. Theonly exception has been for Gore Industries(Gore-tex) that brought in high paying jobs andpaid 100% of development costs to go outsidethe Urban Growth Boundary. It is otherwisenot possible to jump the boundary in the citywithout redrawing the boundaries with theplanning and zoning commission and citycouncil. People do not move out into the coun-ty because they can not get fire, paved roads,or other services. Infrastructure is provided atcost to a developer to a level of service standardprescribed by the city. The city uses theCapital Improvements Program to upgrade oldinfrastructure.


Flagstaff has a large land area with ownershipby federal government and has worked hard tocreate inter-governmental land-use policies.Albuquerque could also get the developer topay for new infrastructure so that the CapitalImprovements Program can focus on mainte-nance and repair. Flagstaff has held fast totheir urban service area policy and do not per-mit development in areas not designated forurban development.


Flagstaff Community Profile


Ursela Montaño, Principal Planner, Long-Term Planning Section 520-774-5281ext. 255 [email protected]


10.4.5 Fort Collins, Colorado


• Defined Urban Growth Areas and policiesfor annexation

• Urban Growth Boundary identified in anintergovernmental agreement with LarimerCounty

• Compact urban growth policy requires aproperty to be at least 1/6 contiguous toexisting urban development and be withinthe urban growth boundary to be devel-oped.

• Adequate Public Facilities ManagementSystem assures that public facilities andservices needed to support development areavailable concurrently with development.

• Building permits are not issued until theabove criteria are met.

• Transfer of Development Rights allowshigher density in planned projects (not usedfor developing new units in new areas).Transfer of Development Rights is a tool topull development away from areas identi-fied as open space or rural and allow high-er densities in the urban core.

• Design guidelines are based on a communi-ty process surveying visual preferences.Citizens want “human scale” pedestrian ori-ented development with interconnectedneighborhoods, maximum block sizes andno gated communities.

• Growth pays its “fair share” through ImpactFees (e.g., $15,000). Impact Fees arewaived for affordable housing.

• A voluntary body of regional managers andelected officials meets monthly to discussregional planning issues, especially alongthe I-25 corridor in order to create moreconsistency in the quality of development.

Lessons Learned

The growth management tools are in the LandUse Code as part of the Zoning Code andMunicipal Code. This carries more weight than

the Comprehensive Plan. They may loosen thecontiguity requirement to allow the “next prop-erty over” to be developed. Fort Collins,Colorado rescinded their performance basedzoning system “Land Development GuidanceSystem” (for PUD’s) and replaced it with thenew Land Use Code that incorporates designand quality standards. They see efforts asgrowth management, not growth controls,because the adequate public facilities planidentifies location, and facilities planning man-ages the time frame.

In the 1970s, the city tried using extension ofsewer and water as a tool to control the rate ofgrowth and location. The county commission-ers promoted growth and developed specialwater and sewer districts circling the cityboundaries. They ended up with sewer andwater available in all of the Urban GrowthBoundary. For them, adequate public facilitiesrelate more to streets, bicycle paths, pedestri-an paths. They find the contiguity requirementmore effective for guiding location of growth.But this approach has unintended conse-quences like performance zoning did. Thereare concerns that it might drive up the cost ofland and some areas might be stalled by a con-tiguous landowner uninterested in develop-ment “blocking the way” for others. In responseto developers, development approvals are 60%approved by administrative officer rather thanboard. In order to do that, the neighborhoodssaid, “ok, but raise the design bar and makedevelopment more prescriptive and pre-dictable.” If the developer wants to vary fromthat, they can go to the planning and zoningboard.

The county now sees that it is in its best inter-est to have an agreement with the city to iden-tify where to urbanize. The county sees itself asrural and unable to provide the services need-ed and demanded by urban dwellers, such aspolice, street maintenance, etc. The countycould not afford and did not want to get intothe business of providing urban services. Theyalso started to see significant air quality prob-lems.



Fort Collins, Colorado tried performance basedzoning to create community and village areasin new developments. This effort was not seenas adequate to address the main growth man-agement challenges. Design criteria are incor-porated into the current approach.

Larimer County’s intergovernmental agree-ment document cites “Intergovernmentalagreements present a united, cooperativecity/county front toward developmental goalsand policies within the greater metropolitanareas which represent significant steps towardeffectively managing development.” Albuquer-que and Bernalillo County could also worktogether in this way to set a policy that estab-lishes an urban growth area and that urbandevelopment (> 2 du/acre) locate in the UrbanGrowth Area. The city agrees not to annexproperty outside the Urban Growth Area with-out first amending the boundary throughestablished procedures.


Intergovernmental Agreement for the FortCollins Urban Growth Area (LarimerCounty) (1991)

Land Use Code downloaded from web

Capital Improvement Expansion Fee Schedule(Impact Fees)

Performance Zoning (Land DevelopmentGuidance System) (1981)


www.fort-collins.co.us Land Use Code inadvanced planning section

Joe Frank, Director of Advanced Planning970-221-6376 [email protected]

10.4.6 King County, Washington


State of Washington passed a law in 1991 and1992 requiring cities and counties to develop agrowth management plan. This got the 39cities (including Seattle) of King County work-ing together for a combined vision of growth,including:

• Urban Growth Boundary

• Regional Planning

• Benchmark Performance Indicators track progress

• Infill and upzoning to increase density

Lessons Learned

King County has 1.7 million people (1/3 Seattle,1/3 suburban, and 1/3 unincorporated county)and is the most populous county in the state.The state requires counties to create aComprehensive Plan containing a growth

management plan identifying how it willaccommodate housing and job growth for thenext 20 years. If a county does not comply, thestate can take road funds away. They actual-ly did take road funds away from anothercounty for six months. If jurisdictions in thecounty do not follow the plan, they can betaken to the State Growth Hearings Board orto court to gain compliance. The plan creates a20-year target for each city to absorb expectedpopulation growth.

The cities did not trust the county to create aplan so the cities created a new group “GrowthManagement Planning Council” made up ofcaucuses, a population based process to bringin city representation with the membershipcomprised of elected officials. The cities alsocreated a process in which the cities wouldratify the growth management plan after thecounty council passed it to assure thatchanges would not be made to the documentby the county council after the regional coun-cil worked on it. If 2/3 of the cities ratify theplan, it passes.


The City of Redmond was having difficultykeeping up with the growth. They could not getmoney fast enough from the state and federalgovernment to build adequate roads. So theyput a moratorium on downtown developmentunless developers would create mixed use ofcommercial and housing. As a result, they cre-ated mixed use at the scale needed.

The private sector and environmentalists werenervous about how the county would agree todraw the line and “lock up land and resources,”how it would affect quality of life, and how toassure that the goals and objectives were beingmet. In 1995 they created a “Benchmark” per-formance measurement process. The 1999report executive summary states: “The KingCounty Countywide Planning Policies - the poli-cies adopted by the Growth ManagementPlanning Council mandate that quality of lifeissues are measured and tracked. In 1995, theGrowth Management Planning Council and citi-zens throughout the county helped develop 45indicators, which directly relate to the policies inthe countywide plan. The Benchmark reportreviews progress. The 1999 Benchmark reportindicates that quality of life is improving in areaslike air quality, water consumption, new housingunit production, parks and open space, rural,and resource lands. In other areas (amount ofaffordable housing and traffic congestion) datafrom the report shows a need for improvement.”

This performance-based approach identifies anumber of quantifiable criteria. The full reportcan be found at the following address: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/

Cities have to integrate the growth plan intotheir Comprehensive Plans. A Growth HearingBoard is a 3-person state appointed board thathears appeals of anyone who thinks theComprehensive Plans are not being followed.The cities have to abide by the findings of thegrowth hearing board.


The State of Washington’s legislation has provid-ed the impetus for counties to create regional

plans. They are in the position of creating a planor having their road funding withheld. We arenot subject to such requirements. The bench-mark system can help evaluate the progress andaccomplishments of a growth management pro-gram and can be used for amending the programas needed. Such performance-based factors canhelp with future decisions about the effective-ness of different aspects of a planned growthstrategy.


Washington State Growth Management Act is on Website for State of WA Dept of Community Trade and EconomicDevelopment

The Countywide planning policies, the KingCounty Comprehensive Plan as well asComprehensive Plans for 39 cities in KingCo available www.metrokc.gov at County-wide Planning Policies

Benchmark report tracking progress on per-formance based objectives also available atthe Office of Regional Policy and Planningwww.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp


www.metrokc.gov Cynthia Moffit, PrinciplePlanner for Long Range Planning, KingCounty Metro Government [email protected]

A contact for downtown redevelopment:Roberta Lewandowski, Planning Director forRedmond, [email protected]

Contacts for transportation: Don Ding, headof transportation for unincorporated kingcounty 206-689-4702

Ron Posthuma, Acting Deputy Director forMetropolitan King County TransportationDepartment 206-684-1007 Henry Markus684-6738

Don Ding can also answer questions aboutfinancing infrastructure construction, oper-ation and maintenance.


The list of benchmark indicators follows:

Economic Development:

#1 Real wages per worker

#2 Personal and medianhousehold income: KingCounty compared to USA

#3 Percentage of populationbelow the poverty level

#4 New businesses created

#5 New jobs created byemployment sector

#6 Employment in industriesthat export from the region

#7 Educational background ofadult population

#8 High school graduation rate

Environment:

#9 Land cover changes inurban and rural areas over time

#10 Air quality

#11 Energy consumption

#12 Vehicle miles traveled per year

#13 Surface water and groundwater quality

Map: Tri-County Watersheds and Major Streams

#14 Water consumption

#15 Change in groundwater levels

#16 Change in wetland acreageand functions

#17 Continuity of terrestrialand aquatic habitat net-works

#18 Change in number ofsalmon

#19 Rate of increase in noisefrom vehicles, planes, andyard equipment

#20 Pounds of waste disposedand recycled per capita

Affordable Housing:

#21 Supply and demand foraffordable housing

#22 Percent of income paid forhousing

#23 Homelessness

#24 Home purchase affordabili-ty gap for buyers

#25 Home ownership rate

Map: King County HomeOwnership Rate

#26 Apartment vacancy rate

Map: Rural and Urban Subareasof King County

#27 Trend of housing costs vs. income

#28 Public dollars spent for low-income housing

#29 Housing affordable to low-income households

Map: Affordable Housing in King County

Land Use:

#30 New housing units inUrban Areas andRural/Resource Areas, andin Urban Centers

Maps: Urban Centers

#31 Employment in Urban andRural/Resource Areas,Urban and Manufacturing/

Industrial Centers

#32 New housing units builtthrough redevelopment

#33 Ratio of land consumptionto population growth

#34 Ratio of achieved density toallowed density of residen-tial development

#35 Ratio of land capacity to20-year job and householdtargets

#36 Land with six years ofinfrastructure capacity

#37 Acres of urban parks andopen space

#38 Ratio of jobs to housing inCentral Puget Sound coun-ties, and King County sub-regions

#39 Acres in forest land andfarm land

#40 Number and average size of farms

Transportation:

#41 Percent of residents whocommute one way within30 minutes

#42 Transit trips per person

#43 Percent of residents whouse alternatives to the sin-gle occupant vehicle

#44 Ability of goods and servic-es to move efficiently andcost effectively throughoutthe region

#45 Number of lane miles ofcity, county and stateroads in need of repair andpreservation


10.4.7 Lexington/Fayette County,Kentucky


• Urban Growth Boundaries (1958)

• Urban Service Areas - included detailedeconomic and demographic projections andplans for expansion of public and privatefacilities.

• Adequate Public Facilities

• Impact Fees

• Transfer of Development Rights

• Small area plans/historic zoning overlay

• City and county merged in 1974

Lexington was the first city in the country to adopt the concept of urban growth bound-aries (in 1958). They have never departed fromthe plan, though they have expanded bound-aries over time and modified techniques.Boundaries are changed as part of theComprehensive Plan update. Public meetingsfor the Comprehensive Plan allow for citizeninput into boundary proposals. They also havea citizen committee that advises the PlanningCommission. Originally, the growth manage-ment plan emphasized public facility coordina-tion and efficiency, especially regarding sanitarysewers. Objectives now include agriculturalland preservation and maintaining the innercity. They use Community Development BlockGrant funds to improve inner city infrastructureand neighborhoods, and historic overlay zoningto encourage rehabilitation. Underutilized (e.g.,surface parking downtown) or vacant land inthe central city greatly diminished. Buildingpermits and sewer extensions are not providedoutside the urban growth boundaries.

The growth management plan is linked to anoverall facility plan, particularly regarding san-itary sewers (water is provided through a pri-vate utility). Most sewers are funded by devel-opers. The Capital Improvements Program isused to a very limited extent. The primary toolis to require developers to construct adequatefacilities themselves. Major trunk lines are

funded by exaction fees. If a developer con-structs the trunk line at his expense, he getsreimbursed over time through the exaction feeprogram as others hook in. Developers payapproximately 80% of facility costs, city/coun-ty supports the approximately 20% remaining.

Impact Fees vary by location and are chargedper acre. The older urban service areas do nothave Impact Fees because they are alreadyserved. New suburban areas have higher fees.For instance, the sewer exaction varies from$1,100–$3,000 per acre.

Lessons Learned

In the 1960s, before city/county consolidation,the county permitted a subdivision outside theurban growth boundary that ended up withsevere septic problems that had to be alleviat-ed by the city. The city extended a narrowsewer line to service that area. The city did notallow development of the intervening 500 acresto hook into the sewer line because it wasinstalled to ameliorate a problem, it was out-side the Urban Growth Boundary, and it wasnot sized to safely accommodate more capaci-ty. Twenty years later the city is growing inthat direction and will expand the system. Thesubdivision with septic problems had to payfor the sewer extension and new developmentswill pay for the current expansion.

Housing has not jumped the boundary into therural area. All counties in the area have a five-acre minimum per rural dwelling unit. Sincethe county and city merged, they are able toshare benefits. They depend more on incomeand employment taxes than property or salestaxes. Affordable housing is not chargedImpact Fees or subject to density caps. SinceImpact Fees are charged on a per-acre basis,there is no disincentive for the builder to putmore units on the land. Fees are higher onland suited for higher density.


The following goals excerpted from theLexington/Fayette Comprehensive Plan, (thedocument that supports their urban growth


management concepts) appear to be applicableto Albuquerque.

The Comprehensive Plan includes UrbanService Boundary Criteria createdto assureefficiency, effectiveness, and fairness in deter-mining the boundary. These criteria could behelpful to Albuquerque’s urban growth plan-ning. The criteria state that an Urban ServiceArea Boundary should be:

• Provide for citizenparticipation in plan-ning and zoningdecisions andencourage citizeninvolvement in theimplementation ofprograms for thebenefit of the com-munity.

• Guide the physicaldevelopment of thecommunity.

• Support and upholdthe urban servicearea concept.

• Provide businessand employmentopportunities for theentire community.

• Establish and pro-mote plannedemployment centers.

• Ensure the vitality ofdowntown.

• Establish and pro-mote urban activitycenters to provideappropriate servicesto multineighbor-hood areas.

• Provide housingopportunities tomeet the needs of allcitizens.

• Preserve, protect,and enhance existingneighborhoods.

• Protect and preserveFayette County’s sig-nificant historic andcultural heritage.

• Promote land usewhich is sensitive tothe natural and builtenvironment.

• Promote neighbor-hood and communi-ty atmosphere innew developments.

• Provide essentialpublic facilities forurban development.

• Plan and programthe installation of allessential public facil-ities to reasonablycoincide with theoccurrence of devel-opment.

• Provide sanitarysewer service to theentire urban servicearea through publicand private coopera-tive efforts in financ-ing, easement acqui-sition, and construc-tion.

• Provide and main-tain a comprehen-sive transportationsystem.

• Provide for a rangeof facilities and serv-ices such as publicsafety and socialservices.

• Maintain the bound-aries and soundlymanage land use inestablished ruralactivity centers.

• Create no new ruralactivity centers.

• Maintain andenhance the agricul-tural economy andrural character inthe rural servicearea.

• Encourage regionalplanning and coordi-nation.

• Located so as toachieve or enhancemajor plan themesand goals.

• Located to encouragecost effective andefficient use of pub-lic facilities.

• Land within theboundary should besufficient in quantityto accommodate 20years of projectedpopulation growthand economic devel-opment.

• Land should be eco-nomically suitablefor development.

• Direct developmentaway from signifi-cant or scenic land-scapes as defined inthe Greenspace Plan.

• Located to directdevelopment awayfrom prime agricul-tural land and horsefarms.

• Located to directdevelopment awayfrom environmental-ly sensitive and geo-logic hazard areas.

• Located so as toexclude public facili-ties that conflict withor inhibit urbandevelopment.

• Follow significantnatural or man-made features, suchas large lakes, minorand major drainageboundaries, parksrailroads and princi-pal arterials or free-ways, whereverappropriate.

• Urban developmentshould be compactand must be con-tiguous.

• Located along thetops of ridgelineswithin drainagebasins to allow sew-ering of the urbanservice area in anefficient and eco-nomical way, whilenot putting develop-ment pressure onland outside theurban service area.

• Include existingdevelopment that iscontiguous to theexisting or plannedurban areas.

• May, but does nothave to, follow property lines.


10.4.8 Lincoln, Nebraska


• Urban Service Boundaries (1961)

• City charter includes direction onComprehensive Plan and location and tim-ing of facility expansion

Lessons Learned

Lincoln is about 40 miles southwest of Omahaand is 450 miles from Denver. It is home to thecapital and university and has grown at anaverage annual rate of 2% employment and1.2% population since 1980. Lincoln has a pol-icy to develop gradually and contiguously andannexes land as it develops so it only developswithin the city limits. Urban service areas wereimplemented in 1961 and are defined for phas-ing to include (1) existing facility lines and (2)future urbanizing areas.

The city charter has included growth criteriasince the 1950s and provides the legal basisand policy direction to include growth management in the Comprehensive Plan.Including growth management principles inthe city charter is helpful if they would ever bechallenged in court on growth decisions. Todate, nobody has challenged the basic plan-ning principles. The impetus came from theoriginal planning director in 1951 who wanted Lincoln to retain a sense of communi-ty, control its destiny, and grow contiguously.Extraterritorial jurisdiction is also included inthe charter.

The charter is written in general terms butincludes a set of criteria such as: (1) Where—

Growth shall occur in proximity to existingboundaries and utilities. This is accomplishedthrough a policy that controls the extension ofutilities, and the Comprehensive Plan directssewer lines to be laid contiguously. (2) Scale—Magnitude and densities of development aredesignated relative to available or plannedservices and facilities. (3) When—Phasing is inthe implementation chapter of the Compre-hensive Plan. It is directed to follow a logicalpattern. (4) What—Facilities and service exten-sions are incorporated into the ComprehensivePlan.

Lincoln’s citizens are closely involved in theplanning process. A community congressdefined community goals and objectives,adopted a 150-goal statement by the city andcounty, and a task force considered five keyissues. Citizens have been involved in down-town development as well as concentric andcontiguous development.

The Comprehensive Plan undergoes an annu-al review and is revised every five to sevenyears. During this process, they can changethe location of boundaries and direction ofgrowth. (Generally the service areas expand,but between 1977–1985, the area wasreduced). They generally predicate direction ofgrowth to follow the natural gravity line forsewer utilities. Currently, Lincoln is consider-ing whether to expand eastward into a differ-ent drainage basin. They have a policy that willnot allow pumping over a ridge. An exceptionwas made for a major employer who wanted torelocate on the fringe but was convinced tomove in five miles on a major arterial. Theemployer paid for the wastewater pumpingand water supply and was held responsible formaintenance of the lines.


1996 Comprehensive Plan, Expansion AreaMaster Plan

Website (www.lfucg.com through the Divisionof Planning) shows Rural Land ManagementPlan and newsletter announcing Compre-

hensive Plan update. Their land-use planmap and zoning map can be found underthe “GIS café” at www.lfucg.com


www.lfucg.com Bob Joice, Long RangePlanning Manager [email protected]


A local planner said the plan has been veryeffective in managing growth, though thedevelopment community feels like they are abit restricted. The city does not allow too manySpecial Assessment Districts because whenthey go bankrupt, the city buys them out. Theylearned the lesson from Omaha where footingthe bill for failed Special Assessment Districtscontributed to a budget crisis. Instead,Lincoln provides a revolving fund to whichdevelopers can apply to subsidize extension ofutilities and infrastructure for new develop-ment.

Lincoln does not have an Impact Fee system.Instead, utility extension is negotiated on acase-by-case basis in the annexation agree-ment. Some developers say they would preferan Impact Fee system because it would bemore predictable and there would not be a ten-fold discrepancy of who pays for what. There isalways cost sharing between the city and pri-vate developers because the city can not affordto pay for it all. Even when a project is includ-ed in the Capital Improvements Program, thedeveloper has to contribute funds as well.

The facilities extension plan and CapitalImprovements Program are based on theComprehensive Plan. The city charter requiresthat any capital expenditure must conformwith the Comprehensive Plan. Water and sewerare municipally owned, and electricity is qua-simunicipal. Some say that housing costsincreased, but the planner I spoke with saidthat most people think it is a wash. In com-parison with Omaha, Lincoln is a more desir-able place to live, and construction of housesof equal value are built better in Lincoln. Oneor two percent of the housing stock jumpedover the boundary in the form of elite estate-type dwellings on large plots with no city serv-ices.


Albuquerque could use a Planned GrowthStrategy ordinance as Lincoln uses its citycharter to back up the growth managementplan contained in a section of the Comprehen-

sive Plan and could require the ComprehensivePlan to address future location and timing ofgrowth. This could provide a legal basis anddirection for the Comprehen-sive Plan.

Lincoln looks at expected growth based ontrends. They estimate the number of dwellingand commercial units needed in the next 10years and determine what contiguous areas toannex and expand into. They do not buildwater or sewer lines unless they are in an areathat is targeted to absorb the expected amountof growth. The Capital Improvements Programreflects these projects.

Lincoln only extends water and sewer where itis economical and reasonable in terms of theirgravity system and drainage basin. Growthand the extension of services are intertwined.They determine what direction they want togrow in and put that in the ComprehensivePlan. The Capital Improvements Program fol-lows the plan. The city annexes land it wantsto develop, and they have an agreement withthe county that all urban-type developmentwill take place within the city limits.

The Capital Improvements Program process is similar to Albuquerque, except the directionof new facility construction is coordinated witha growth plan defining location and timing of growth, and the Capital Improve-ments Program is directly related to theComprehensive Plan. Lincoln is quite con-scious of the costs associated with construc-tion and maintenance of new facilities andtherefore requires cost-sharing, even if includ-ed in the Capital Improvements Program.

If a development does not follow the plan, theydo not get a building permit. As a result of theplan, infrastructure has been better able tokeep pace with growth, and there is more pre-dictability. Operation and maintenance ofinfrastructure is financed through a combina-tion of sources: (1) utilities pay out of fees col-lected through enterprise fund, (2) roads aremaintained through a wheel tax, gas tax, andstate and federal funds; and (3) CapitalImprovements Program.


The Comprehensive Plan contains the follow-ing annexation considerations that could beuseful for Albuquerque: (Chapter VIII, page191)

• The boundaries for providing municipalservices should generally coincide with thejurisdictional boundaries of the community.

• The extension of water or sewer serviceshall be predicated upon an annexation,which shall occur before the land is provid-ed with water or sewer service.

• Land that is remote from the limits of theCity of Lincoln will not be annexed; landthat is contiguous and generally urban incharacter may be annexed; and land whichis engulfed by the city should be annexed.

The Lincoln city charter contains the followinglanguage regarding the Comprehensive Plan(Sec. 4) that could be useful for Albuquerque’splanned growth ordinance:

(6) The general location of existing and proposed public buildings, structures, andfacilities.

The Comprehensive Plan shallinclude a land-use plan showing theproposed general distribution andgeneral location of business andindustry, residential areas, utilities,and recreational, educational, andother categories of public and pri-vate land uses. The land-use planshall also show recommended stan-dards of population density andbuilding intensity based upon pop-ulation estimates and providing foractivities for which space should besupplied within the area covered bythe plan. The Comprehensive Planshall include and show proposalsfor acquisition, extension, widening,narrowing, removal, vacation, aban-donment, sale and other actionsaffecting public improvements.(amendment of March 3, 1959)

Section 7 of the Lincoln city charter on CapitalImprovements includes the following language

which could help guide Albuquerque’s ordi-nance:

The planning director shall examineeach recommended project for con-formity to the Comprehensive Planand shall prepare a consolidatedschedule of the projects recom-mended by the departments, whichschedule shall describe the charac-ter and degree of conformity or non-conformity of each project as itrelates to the Comprehensive Plan.

1994 Lincoln Comprehensive Plan amend-ments from April 6, 1999 include helpful lan-guage regarding cost sharing for facilities.

Chapter II: Land Use Plan

Protect existing public and privateinvestments in services, infra-structure and improvements byrequiring new commercial develop-ments to pay their “fair share” ofpublic costs of such developments.In the analysis of “fair share” alsodo an analysis of the costs/benefitsof the development and consideran analysis of impacts on theCapital Improvements Program.


Comprehensive Plan 1994 with 1999 updatesincorporated into the document.

City Charter Article IX-B “City PlanningDepartment”

Profiles in Growth Management, Urban Land Institute


Kent Morgan, Assistant Director for LongRange Planning: [email protected]

Urban redevelopment using Tax IncrementFinancing and Community DevelopmentBlock Grant, contact Mark Wullschleger402-441-7120


10.4.9 Madison, Wisconsin


• Urban Service Boundary

• Brief moratorium on urban service expansion in 1990

• Short-term cap on building permits during water tower construction

Lessons Learned

Madison has an Urban Service Boundary basedon protecting water quality and permission toextend sewers. Authority to extend sewers isheld by a regional planning commission and thestate. The city has a development plan forperipheral areas (three mile extraterritorialjurisdiction) identifying priority areas for urbanexpansion and growth, setting a phasingsequence. Before urban development is initiat-ed, they require a neighborhood plan includingurban services and phasing. Building is notpermitted unless sewer lines are present; septicis not allowed in the city. Currently they have aone-year cap on building permits until someelevated reservoirs are built. Platting is allowed,but timing is an issue. It has limited construc-tion of several hundred homes or more.

Madison implemented a brief moratorium onurban service expansion 10 years ago. Theplanner interviewed said the moratorium was“more trouble than it was worth because growthdid not approach the urban service boundaryand the idea just made developers mad.” Thecounty has competing interests with the cityand tends to approve township development onthe edge. An example is a landowner with 56acres who requested and received approval todevelop from the planning commission, result-ing in opening 12,000 acres for development.The property is not in the urban phasing planand is not contiguous (a University researchfarm operates between the current boundaryand the land). Since a regional planning com-mission has authority over sewer extensions,there is a stopgap opportunity to deny develop-ments that break out of the plan.

The City of Madison has recently drafted a TaxIncremental Finance Plan with the followingobjectives and policies. Tax IncrementalFinancing is a governmental finance tool that thecity uses to provide funds to construct publicinfrastructure, promote development opportuni-ties, and expand the future tax base. Tax incre-mental finance assistance in Madison is onlyused when the proposed development would notoccur "but for" city assistance. The proposeddevelopment should be consistent with and rein-force all city plans and lead to the consolidationand redevelopment of underused properties.


The concept of Tax Increment Financing andthe objectives and policies it strives to achieveare a useful approach, though property taxesare not the main source of revenue for the cityand county. However, the Madison standardscould be a model for other forms of public-pri-vate partnerships.

The moratorium on urban service expansionmade the developers unhappy at the city anddid not accomplish much because growth wasnot near the boundary. The county has ruraland township interests and does not “like” theCity of Madison. It tends to approve townshipdevelopment on the edge and tends to under-mine the urban service area objectives.

The 1990 peripheral development plan is con-tinually updated. The planner interviewedvoiced disappointment that they did not incor-porate design standards into the plan becauseit was a missed opportunity at building neigh-borhoods with character and quality. Theyalso did not organize commercial areas well.They have not been able to increase densities.Since increased density is in the plan but notin an ordinance, the developers or neighbor-hoods can insist on providing exemption for adevelopment, and the court upholds the plan-ning staff decision because they say it is equiv-alent to amending the plan. We can learn fromthis experience by determining what objectivesand standards should be in the ordinance.



Policy on Website


www.ci.madison.wi.us Michael Waidelich,Principal Planner for Comprehensive Plan

608-266-4635 [email protected]

In order to use tax incremen-tal financing effectively, thecity has produced planning,project, and developer reviewpolicies to direct public andprivate investment towardmeeting the following commu-nity objectives:

Downtown RevitalizationThe proposed developmentshould support continued revi-talization of the downtown byone or more of the following:

Improving the public infrastruc-ture. Providing a variety of hous-ing choices, through renovationand rehabilitation of existingbuildings and higher-densitynew construction in selectedareas to increase the numberand diversity of downtown resi-dents.

Attracting, retaining, or expand-ing businesses.

Encouraging the development ofhigher concentrations and mixesof commercial, retail, business,and professional office uses,with parking, within mixed-useprojects.

Encouraging development proj-ects that enhance the street-scape and pedestrian experienceand improve the vitality of com-mercial districts by adding inter-est and activity on the first floorof mixed-use buildings.

Support NeighborhoodRevitalizationThe proposed developmentshould support the recommen-dations of adopted neighbor-hood plans and other revitaliza-tion efforts by:

Improving the public infrastructure.

Stimulating the rehabilitation orremoval of deteriorated or dilapi-dated housing and the creationof mixed-use in-fill redevelop-ment.

Providing the full range of basicneighborhood goods and servicesand employment opportunities.

Providing transportation link-ages and other urban amenities.

Increasing the supply and vari-ety of high-quality home owner-ship opportunities.

Increasing residential densitiesat selected locations as identifiedin the adopted neighborhoodplans or the downtown masterplan.

Support EconomicDevelopmentSupport economic developmentactivities intended to stabilizeand diversify the city’s economicbase by:

Improving the public infrastructure.

Supporting development of in-dustrial parks to attract newindustries and provide suitablelocations for expansion and relo-cation of existing industries.

Providing financial assistance tonew and existing businesses.

Finance PoliciesEligible uses of tax incrementalfinance (not in priority order):

Downtown owner-occupiedhousing development.

Assisting revitalization of historic or architecturally significant buildings.

Supporting projects that areconsistent with adopted neigh-borhood plans.

Public infrastructure project costs.

Attracting, retaining, or expanding businesses.

Ineligible uses of tax incremen-tal finance:

Speculative office development.

Office development that consistsof moving a downtown office orbusiness to another downtownlocation for purposes other thanto retain or substantially expandthe business.

Write-downs for land purchasesthat greatly exceed the assessedvalue of the current land use(s),as determined by the city.


Finance Policies on HousingThe city wishes to encourage thecreation of high-quality, owner-occupied housing projects.

For all owner-occupied projectsof 20 units or more, the develop-er must provide one (1) new orrehabilitated, affordable dwel-ling unit, in the surroundingneighborhood, for every ten (10)new, owner-occupied dwellingunits. The affordable dwellingunits shall be made available toincome-certified households at80% of the county medianincome, adjusted by family size.The term “affordable” is general-ly defined to mean a mortgagepayment that does not exceed30% of monthly gross income.

For large-scale projects of fiveacres or more which are pre-dominantly owner-occupied, thecity will consider providing taxincremental finance funds forrental housing that preserveshistoric structures, rehabilitatesexisting housing, or meets othercity goals and objectives.

For all rental housing thatoccurs as a result of the above,20% of all rental units must beaffordable to income-certifiedhouseholds at 80% of the coun-ty median income, adjusted byfamily size. The affordable rentalunits shall remain affordableuntil the tax incremental

finance debt is repaid. The term“affordable” is generally definedto mean a rent that does notexceed 30% of monthly grossincome.

Underwriting Policies forPrivate DevelopmentProjectsEach project must demonstratesufficient need for the city’sfinancial assistance, so thatwithout that assistance, therewould be no project.

Every other financial alternativeis to be exhausted prior to theuse of tax incremental finance,including equity participation,other federal and state funds,bonds, tax credits, loans, etc.

Tax incremental finance assis-tance will be utilized as gapfinancing.

Tax incremental finance assis-tance will be limited to theamount necessary to make aproject competitive with othersimilar projects in the Madisonmetropolitan market area. Theintent is not to provide below-market sales prices or rent sub-sidies to assisted projects,except as applied to assistaffordable housing.

No more than 50% of the netpresent value of the tax incre-ment generated by a privatedevelopment project shall bemade available to that project asgap financing.

Each project demonstrating aneed for tax incremental financeassistance must generate suffi-cient tax increment to cover orrepay both the tax incrementalfinance contribution to the proj-ect and a portion of the plannedpublic infrastructure costs with-in the tax incremental district.

No increment from other privatedevelopment projects within atax increment district may beused to supplement anotherproject’s inability to generatesufficient tax increment.

Each project must demonstrateprobability of economic success.

The city will require a personalguaranty for tax incrementalfinance assistance.

The city will not provide mortgage guarantees.

The developer(s) shall provide aminimum of 10% of the totalestimated project costs as equity.

As set forth in Wis. Stats., TaxIncremental Finance may not beused to pay for public infra-structure expenditures that areotherwise paid for by “anyincome, special assessments, orother revenues, including userfees or charges, other than taxincrements, reasonably expect-ed to be received by the city inconnection with the implemen-tation of the plan.”


10.4.10 Metropolitan Council,Minnesota


• Urban Service Areas

• Revenue Sharing

• Transportation-led planning

Lessons Learned

The Metropolitan Council is a state-authorizedbody (established in 1967) that coordinatesregioal planning and guides development inthe seven-county area surrounding the TwinCities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). This areainvolves 3,000 square miles and 2.5 millionpeople. The council operates regional services,including wastewater, transit, low-incomepublic housing, and affordable housing. Thecouncil also establishes policies for airports,regional parks, highways, transit, sewer, airand water quality, land use, and affordablehousing and provides planning and technicalassistance to communities in the Twin Citiesregion. The Metropolitan Council sets thedirection for the timing, location, and capacityof regional systems, issues bonds to financecapital improvements, and coordinates exten-sion of services to newly developed areas.Holding funding and bonding authority andoperating the airport and regional transporta-tion systems provides actual planning author-ity to the Metropolitan Council.

The original Urban Service Area plan from the1970s called for rings of development, or tiers,to grow out from the core. The current strate-gy recognizes the nuances in communities asthey move out in concentric rings, and the newplan is more corridor and transportation driv-en. By the 1990s, the region grew in size, pop-ulation, and diversity and does not stick to theoriginal ring pattern.

Revenue sharing, or the “fiscal disparities pro-gram,” was enacted by the 1971 legislature inresponse to concerns about high propertytaxes, large differences in tax base among

communities, and competition for develop-ment by using fiscal incentives that did notalways produce the best development deci-sions. Revenue sharing was a way to make theTwin Cities region a single economic unit,though it contains nearly 300 cities, counties,and special districts within its 3,000 squaremile area. It contributes to efficiency in region-al infrastructure and capitalizes on location ofeconomic development.

In 1976, the legislature passed the Metropoli-tan Land Planning Act requiring all local gov-ernments in the seven county region to adoptComprehensive Plans consistent with regionalpolicies and within regional systems capaci-ties, including sewers, transportation, parksand airports. In 1994, under threat from theGovernor to disband the council unless itbecame more “relevant,” the council adoptednew regional growth management policies.

Recently, the Metropolitan Council updatedtheir Urban Service Areas concept. The defini-tion of urban core changed to include the olderneighborhoods in addition to downtown. Theyalso looked at a more efficient way to setboundaries and stage growth patterns. Theyhave set a 2040 line as a maximum growthboundary for the next 40 years and a 2020 linenegotiated with communities to accommodateinterim residential and employment growth.The objective is to have better land use, useinfrastructure more efficiently, and increasedensity. They embarked on an effort to cleanup Brownfields, encourage infill, develop in atransit friendly way, and create transit nodes.

A public-private partnership created a mixed-use development and transit node in a busysection of an older suburb. A shopping strip ata major transportation and employment centerhad declined. A partnership between theMetropolitan Council, the City of St. LouisPark, and a private developer tore down theshopping strip and put in a mixed-use develop-ment. They built higher density housing (town-homes and condominiums), a transit node, andsome commercial to support the neighboringoffice buildings. The city used eminent domain


to buy the land and sold it to a developer. Acombination of different financing mechanismswere used: (1) Tax Increment Financing; (2)Metropolitan Council’s “Tax based revitaliza-tion account” for environmental cleanup; (3)Metropolitan Council’s “Livable communitiesdemonstration fund” that can finance transit-oriented development; (4) MetropolitanCouncil’s planning grant for the city to “revi-sion” the area; (5) Metropolitan Council’s livablecommunities grant paid for public infrastruc-ture including a new plaza to connect to a park-way; (6) the city relocated streets and utilitiesthrough Tax Increment Financing; and (7)Private developers are constructing a mixed-use development with condominiums, office,and commercial. (Industrial Revenue Bondswere not used in this case, but are available foruse if appropriate).

Next to this shopping strip was another run-down building with an asbestos problem. Ithad become tax forfeited, and the city took itover. The Metropolitan Council gave the city agrant to clean up asbestos during demolition,providing more land for redevelopment.

How does Tax Increment Financing work? TaxIncrement Financing uses present and futurevalues. For instance, a property may currentlygenerate only $1,000 in taxes (e.g., the shop-ping strip with diminished value). If a mixed-use development is completed, the tax valuemay increase to $10,000. The difference, orincrement, can be used to pay off a bond (of$9,000, for example). Now they have $10,000worth of development. The owner of the build-ing pays the taxes on the $10,000. The cityuses the increment to pay off the bond. Thebeneficiaries of the property tax get their shareof the former value (e.g., portions of the$1,000) until the bond is paid off. So, forinstance, if the property tax is shared 1/3 city,1/3 county, and 1/3 school district, they each get$333 instead of $3,300. But the communitybenefits because the development generatesmore gross receipts taxes and stimulates thelocal area for further development, keeping inmind that the current use did not generate taxmoney either. Assumption of risk is negotiat-ed between the city and the developer. If the

property does not generate revenue, the citycould take it over. Most often in the TwinCites, the backup is assumed by the developerbecause these enterprises are usually success-ful and competition is good. Developers in themarket are showing more confidence.

The Metropolitan Council works toward link-ing regional and local plans. Local Compre-hensive Plans are submitted to theMetropolitan Council for review. Afterapproval, they try to coordinate the location ofregional services. For instance, they designatetown centers as redevelopment areas to targetdenser housing and jobs to facilitate success oflocating a transit station in the development.They provide grants for demonstrations,parks, and open space. For example, theMetropolitan Council is planning a transit cen-ter using “T-21” federal transit program funds.Streetscapes and highway improvements arealso funded by T-21.

Farther out from the center, they supportefforts through affordable housing grants. Thehousing initiative account helps underwritethe cost of construction or rehabilitationthrough a grant for certain income groups,e.g., 30% or 60% of median income. Housingdevelopments can contain mixed incomeunits—out of 60 units, 10 are slated for 30% ofmedian income, 10 are slated for 60% of medi-an income, and 40 are at market rate. Theplanner interviewed said, “It becomes difficultto tell which are subsidized units by looking atthem.”

Overall, Metropolitan Council planning is driv-en by the Urban Service Areas concept. Theydo a 25-year forecast to plan how to accom-modate future populations. Then they ratchetdown to communities and send the proposedprojections out to the seven counties who saywhether they agree, disagree, or want to nego-tiate. They have found that they have beenaccurate with projections for population andjobs, but less accurate with housing units.Then the Metropolitan Council looks at howthey will provide sewer service, highway, tran-sit, parks, and the communities plan how toaccommodate additional houses and jobs. A


built out area may have infill, and a newerarea will suggest staging of development ofland in five-year increments, depending onhow big they are and how fast they are grow-ing. May have an annual staging area.


Much of the motivation to plan regionally hasbeen for fiscal efficiency and to spread thecosts and benefits of regional centers (e.g.,Mall of America in a suburb, new arena indowntown of city, etc.). As a region, they rec-ognized that they could not afford to provideevery landowner with equal amounts of sewer,water, and transportation. They make invest-ments in stages. They put the plan out for dis-cussion and comment before implementation.

Albuquerque is not located in as large a metropolitan region as the Twin CitiesMetropolitan Area and does not have asdiverse an economy that hosts numerous largeand small employers paying high wages,. TheTwin Cities contains a significant number ofcorporate and financial headquarters that cre-ate a strong economic base.

The concept of purchasing land for improve-ments and initiating mixed-use developmenthas promise, as has the public/private part-nership to revitalize a declining area that hasgreat potential for improvement.

The Metropolitan Council is not merely a plan-ning body but operates major metropolitanservices (airport, transit, and wastewater), andhas bonding authority and a budget to fundprojects and implement plans. They haveauthority based on state legislation and fund-ing. Though there is still municipal distrust ofa larger, regional authority making local deci-sions, the Metropolitan Council appears tohave more planning authority than, say, theCouncil of Governments model. Regardless,the concept of making a regional plan for landuse and regional infrastructure needs for thenext 20 and 40 years could be applicable toour area.


“Regional Blueprint” December 1996.

“A Smart Growth Strategy for TransformingSprawl into Livable Communities: RegionalGrowth Strategy for the Twin CitiesMetropolitan Area” by John Kari, October1999.

“Metro 2040: A Growth Strategy for theRegion” from the Website.


www.Metrocouncil.org John Kari, SeniorPolicy Planner [email protected]

Data center 651-602-1140


10.4.11 Minneapolis, Minnesota


• Infill and Redevelopment

• Downtown Revitalization

• Neighborhood Planning and Revitalization

• Public/Private Partnerships

• Revenue Sharing

Lessons Learned

Minneapolis submits its Comprehensive Planto the Metropolitan Council, taking intoaccount the growth projections that were provided by the Metropolitan Council.Minneapolis continues to experience an eco-nomic boom, and growth is expected to be10,000 new households by 2020 and anincrease in downtown office space. Thoughpopulation has gradually shifted to the sub-urbs since 1950, there has also been a signifi-cant influx of immigrants and racial minori-ties. The planner intervied said that the TieredGrowth Concept used by the MetropolitanCouncil does not apply to Minneapolis becauseit is a fully developed city that can not expandits borders. Any growth has to be internal. Asthe city is built out, they are identifying poten-tial housing sites where the land could beredeveloped into moderate or high-densityhousing. The downtown warehouse district isthe place where most of the city’s new housingis currently being developed. It is on an old railarea along the river that has been cleaned andis filling up, with at least 1,500 units planned(and many already built) so far.

In 1991, Minneapolis established a neighbor-hood revitalization effort. The state legislatureallowed the city to refinance bond funds toback off payments for the program ($400 mil-lion). Each of the 81 residential neighborhoodscould come up with their own plan and makerequests depending upon their own priorities,e.g., more police patrol, lighting, gyms, play-grounds, etc. They went through hearings andthen were funded. Much funding went tohousing and economic development in the

neighborhoods. A separate agency, theMinneapolis Community Develop-ment Agencyrehabilitates or razes houses and builds infill.They receive funding from the city and federalgovernment.

Minneapolis worked hard for a number ofyears to revitalize and maintain the vitality ofdowntown. This effort has been very success-ful, and the downtown is busy day and night.A partnership between the downtown council,Chamber of Commerce and city workedtogether. Theaters were refurbished withMinneapolis Community Development Agencymoney. The Target Arena hosts a professionalbasketball team and concerts and draws peo-ple into bars and restaurants. It has dimin-ished as an employment center, though therestill are a number of corporate headquartersand a great deal of commercial (retail centerwith major department stores, boutiques, avariety of restaurants, art galleries, andupscale stores and hotels). There is also anincreasing number of residential condomini-ums—26,000–27,000 people live downtown—attracted to the urban life, with skyways lead-ing to shopping, orchestra hall, arena, the-aters, etc.). Artistic, one-of-a-kind and lowimpact signage contributes to the atmosphereand was a joint effort by the downtown coun-cil and city. The downtown is very much aplanned area. The Comprehensive Plan fordowntown is to keep it compact so it wouldgrow up and not out. Parking structuresaround the perimeter are financed primarily bythe city. By keeping parking on the periphery,the 150,000 people employed downtown wouldstay in the central area to eat and shop.Downtown has become a prestigious locationand is attractive to developers and businesses.

Where incentives are needed, gap financing isprovided and the Minneapolis CommunityDevelopment Agency provides funding. Zoningadjustments are also made to facilitate proj-ects. Outside downtown, the city writes downland for industrial development. The city takesthe property through eminent domain (thepublic purpose is to bring in industry andjobs). Sometimes the city acts as a developer orpartner for an industrial park. Sometimes the


city is disappointed by developers who employpeople who are not city residents (The goal wasto hire city residents and the disadvantaged).

The good relationship between the city and pri-vate business started in the 1960s when theycreated the Nicollet Street mall (a street thatcrosses the entire downtown and runs pastmajor retail and employment centers with awide pedestrian walkway and only allowsbuses, taxis and bicycles on the road.)Dayton’s department store started the 5% clubthat gives 5% of pretax profits to the commu-nity, which induced many other private firmsto do the same. As local businesses are beingacquired, such giving has diminished.

Tax revenue sharing is based on a complex for-mula for which every jurisdiction contributesapproximately 40% of tax revenues and theMetropolitan Council redistributes the fundsthroughout the seven-county metro area. Inthis way, the older sections of the city do notsubsidize the new infrastructure for the devel-oping suburbs, and the Mall of America inBloomington pays taxes to support roads lead-ing to the area.

Have requirements caused a jump over bound-aries? The planner said that industries whichwanted to expand could not be accommodatedfast enough. Brownfields remaining still needclean-up, and land is cheaper and more avail-able in the suburbs.

Housing and apartment rents are dramaticallyincreasing. The median sales price for homesin the first quarter of 1998 was $89,000 andhas risen to $97,750 in 1999. The median rentat midyear in 1998 was $495 and has risen to$575 in mid-1999. The housing crunch is notrelated to the growth management program,rather it is related to the economic boom anddesirability of Minneapolis as a place to live,because the Urban Service Area concept fromthe Metropolitan Council applies to the seven-county metropolitan area and not to the City ofMinneapolis alone.

The housing shortage and price increases havecaused the city council to establish task forces

to look at affordable housing and homeless-ness. Last year the city passed a resolution onaffordable housing with the major emphasison requiring any multiunit rental building of10 or more units with a city subsidy to containat least 20% affordable housing units. The fullresolution is on the Website.

The main transportation issue in the region isthe first Light Rail Transit line that is proposedto go from the Mall of America, through theairport, to end in downtown Minneapolis. It isawaiting final appropriation from Congressthis fall. In general, congestion is risingthroughout the region, and many are realizingthat they can not just keep widening the free-ways. The Metropolitan Council is the lead onplanning regional transportation and also runsthe bus system.

The number of housing units in the city has gen-erally been decreasing over the 1990s. The cityhas been very assertive in removing condemnedbuildings if they could not be rehabilitated with-in certain cost limits. In 1998, the city beganmajor demolition of roughly 1,000 public hous-ing units which were concentrated. The site willbe redeveloped as mixed income housing withroughly 900 units going back in on site. Withthe downtown housing and the public housingsite redevelopment, housing numbers shouldstart to increase in 2000 and 2001.


Minneapolis has a strong economy and has ahistory of planning. The demographics of thecity have changed as an influx of low-incomeresidents have moved in and higher incomefamilies move to the suburbs. Minneapolis hashad a long and successful effort revitalizingand maintaining the downtown as an attrac-tive area for residential, commercial and arts.The city worked as a team with the downtowncouncil in revitalization efforts. The downtownis a strong employment and residential centerand is a good example of mixed-use. (Part ofthe area started to grow with the influx ofartists and art galleries, and grant-supportedactivities.) The arena is downtown and hashad positive and negative impacts.


It is also intriguing how the city purchasedland through eminent domain to be used forindustrial park development in blighted areas.The city is conscious of its position of losinghigher income families to the suburbs and hasmade a strong effort to retain commercial andemployment centers as well as families. Thecity is committed to improving access toaffordable housing by changing policies thatmight act as a deterrent. The neighborhoodplanning effort is also an useful idea to getsmall areas involved in improving their neigh-borhood—at a size they can relate to.


State of the city report is at www.ci.min-neapolis.mn.us/planning


www.ci.minneapolic.mn.us PhillipMeininger, Planning Supervisor, Directorof Research for Planning [email protected]

Laura Lambert [email protected]

Minneapolis Community DevelopmentAgency handles affordable housing:http://www.mcda.org/

State of the City has info on population,housing and other factors.http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/city-work/planning/soc99/2-population.pdfand soc99/3-housing.pdf

10.4.12 Montgomery County, Maryland


• Wedges and Corridors General Plan (water and sewer “envelope”) (1969)

• Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance(1973)

• Transfer of Development Rights(Agricultural Land Preservation) (1980)

• Transit-based planning

• Purchase of open space

Lessons Learned

Montgomery County is a suburb of Washing-ton, D.C. with approximately 760,000 resi-dents. The Wedges and Corridors general planadopted in 1969 provided the policy frameworkto guide development to two major corridors.First they drew a map with a water and sewer“envelope.” According to the policy, if sewerwas planned for an area in the future, but thecounty was not ready to install it, the develop-er had to put in both septic and water andsewer pipes for future hook-up. No one devel-

oped in those areas because of the marginalexpense (It added 10% to the cost of thehouse). This policy was never challenged incourt. The county did not establish a growthboundary, but the sewer envelope created asimilar effect. Homes that decided to buildoutside the zone are large, elite $600,000estates with septic. (Septic requirements arequite specific and not allowed everywherebecause soil conditions do not allow for ade-quate percolation.)

In 1973, an adequate public facilities ordi-nance was adopted. As a condition for projectapproval, several types of facilities must provecapacity available to serve prospective develop-ment. In 1994, the adequate public facilitiesordinance requirements were revised to permitcontinued development near the Metrorail sta-tions as well as for affordable housing. Thisamendment responded to the discovery thatthe original requirements were prohibitinghigher density growth in these transit areas.The adequate public facilities ordinance setsup six infrastructure “tests” for projects tomeet: water, sewer, fire, police response time,schools, and transportation. The planningdirector stated that it has been helpful to have


a system in place to tell people what is plannedin the Capital Improvements Program for thefuture six years, but not approve permits untilinfrastructure meets the level of service andcapacity at that time. Density is currently 6 or7 units/acre, and the northern section is 3 or4 units/acre. With a good design (e.g., town-houses with courtyards in the middle and inte-rior parking), the neighboring residents arewilling to approve 20 units/acre.

They redraw the sewer envelope every two tofive years, depending upon growth. They allowfor traffic congestion to promote higher densi-ty and infill. Public transit system use hasstayed stable (while ridership in other loca-tions has declined). Many commuters use theMetrorail to get into D.C. and surroundingemployment centers.

The county adopted an agricultural landpreservation program in 1980 that provides forTransfer of Development Rights from farm-land. Density limit is one unit per 25 acres.Landowners can sell their Transfer ofDevelopment Rights to receiving areas desig-nated by maps. The planning director said thatTransfer of Development Rights complicatesthings and does not necessarily help develop-ment but does provide equity to rurallandowners. They do not use it around metrostations for upzoning, but use Transfer ofDevelopment Rights to increase densityaround the edges. The program is not too dif-ficult to administer. The local bar associationand real estate industry know it trades likereal estate. Transfer of Development Rightscan be banked, and the value can appreciateor depreciate over time (ranges between$7,000 and $15,000 per unit). The Transfer ofDevelopment Rights is only used for increasein residential density.

The objectives of the growth management pro-gram were to “shape development.” They want-ed higher density corridors and accessibility togreen space within several miles of homes.(The county acquired parks to extend a greenbelt). Growth management was motivated bydesigning and maintaining the character theywanted for the county, as much as for finan-

cial concerns. Zoning techniques were alsoused to shape character using different densi-ties for different areas.

When a proposed development does not followthe plan, they are not permitted to build,based on site plan enforcement. The countyhas acted as banker of Impact Fees to reim-burse the first one in. Impact Fees are collect-ed for all facilities and are paid for each fixture.

Development of affordable housing is required.In 1973, as housing prices were increasing,the county adopted an inclusionary housingprogram requiring developers of 50 or moreresidential units to set aside 15% of the unitsfor low- and moderate-income housing. Inreturn, the developers can obtain an increasein permitted density. Within 20 years, theycreated 9,200 affordable housing units, andthe county added another 800 units with otherprograms.

The Capital Improvements Program hasincreased in amount but has less of a shortfallbecause of the growth strategy. It has not cre-ated an increase in taxes or utility rates.


Montgomery County’s growth management sys-tem has evolved through decades of voter-sup-ported and increasingly sophisticated develop-ment planning. The effort has been helped bythe support of county residents and leadershipshown by planners and elected officials.

The planning director interviewed advised thatdevelopment here should be viewed in terms ofthe best use of limited opportunities. We arefaced with a set of choices about how to devel-op and can make decisions in terms of what isin the best financial interest (e.g., most effi-cient use of infrastructure), what yields a bet-ter cost/benefit outcome and what builds thekind of character we want to see in our com-munities. With adequate public facilities ordi-nance, partnering between private financing ofinfrastructure and targeted use of the CapitalImprovements Program becomes very clear.The Capital Improvements Program is expect-


ed to stay consistent with and implement themaster plan. In Montgomery County, if a proj-ect does not make it into the CapitalImprovements Program, a limited amount offunds are still available to cost-share with adeveloper to build infrastructure.


Clarksburg Master Plan and HyattstownSpecial Study Area, June 1994

Profiles in Growth Management, Urban Land Institute


Jeff Zyontz, Senior Manager, Chief ofCountywide Planning [email protected] WasAdequate Public Facilities Program devel-opment and implementation managerfrom 1974-1987

Carl Moritz, current Adequate PublicFacilities Program coordinator 301-495-4555

10.4.13 Orlando, Florida


• State Law requires Growth Management Plans (1978)

• Growth Management Plan (1980, 1985, 1991, 2000)

• Concurrency/Adequate Public Facilities (1991)

• Mixed-use activity centers (1991)

• Joint Planning Agreement with Orange County

Lessons Learned

Orlando is located in Central Florida and hasa population of approximately 184,000 in 95square miles. They have had a ComprehensivePlan since 1926 and created a growth man-agement plan in response to State Statute in1980. Universal Studios is within the city lim-its.

According to the city’s Growth ManagementPlan executive summary, from 1980 to 1995,the city expanded by 32,000 acres or 118%and increased the value of its tax base by $1billion. A downtown revitalization effort waslaunched in 1981, and the assessed value ofthe downtown tax base has increased from$137 million to $996 million, holding officeand government jobs.

In 1981, Orlando initiated an activity centerplanning concept, comprised of a concentratedmixed-use core; a fringe of medium intensityuses, and a periphery of low intensity residen-tial uses. In recent revisions, the city adopteda growth management plan with 13 elements.Each element has a section with specific poli-cies related to land development and urbandesign. Sector plans go into further detail withpolicies for areas ranging from one parcel to1,000 acres. They created a land-use map andidentified future land use, transportation,housing, and infrastructure. The land-usemap established allowable land uses in differ-ent areas. The zoning map has to be consistentwith it. Main objectives are to (1) protect neigh-borhoods; (2) enhance amenity framework(e.g., lakes, big streets with big trees); (3)multi-modal transit. (A $600 million light railtransit project was defeated by the city coun-cil).

In 1997, they adopted a transportation con-currency exception area (26,000 acres) to pro-mote infill and discourage sprawl because ofthe lack of transportation capacity in the city.Higher traffic congestion has led to increasedtransit ridership.

The Joint Planning Agreement with OrangeCounty defines extraterritorial areas suited forannexation to the city. Yet, the Orange Countycouncil believes that the county should beurban, which is not consistent with theirComprehensive Plan. The city has taken on anaggressive annexation policy to bring in vacant


property for future development. They do havea water and wastewater territorial agreementso as not to duplicate the supply of services.Development has not jumped over the cityboundary because developers want the policeand fire protection, as well as the accountabil-ity of services. Impact Fees in the city andcounty are similar.

Concurrency works with level of service stan-dards adopted for water, sewer, parks, trans-portation, drainage and solid waste. Concur-rency establishes the expectation that develop-ers build all their infrastructure including water,sewer, and roads. If they build a major collectoror arterial, they get Impact Fee credits, or thecity constructs it. A project area must beincluded in the Capital Improvements Programbefore it is built. The city’s economic develop-ment office will sometimes negotiate withlandowners for annexation and create agree-ments that can include, for instance, stormwa-ter drainage improvements or adjusted fees. If aproject does not follow the plan, they do not geta permit. State law backs up the authority ofthe “future land-use map.” The CapitalImprovements Program is targeted to supportdevelopment in identified plan areas.

The Southeast Sector Plan was a combinedeffort between the city and 12 major landown-ers. The cost for the master plan and designguidelines for 20,000 acres was split half bylandowners and half by the city. The planlocated commercial development in clustersrather than strips and requires retention ofwetlands to be connected with “uplands” topreserve land. Transportation corridors had tobe laid out. At the end, the private developershired another consultant and negotiated thefinal result.


Vision Statement from the City of Orlando’sGrowth Management Plan and the 1995Growth Management Plan ExecutiveSummary


www.ci.orlando.fl.us Kevin Tyjeski, ChiefPlanner, Growth Management Division,407-246-3387 [email protected]

10.4.14 Petaluma, California


• Building Permit Quotas (1987)

• Urban Service Areas (1987)

• Urban Growth Boundaries (1998)

Lessons Learned

Petaluma is located 45 minutes south of SanFrancisco. Petaluma has had building permitquotas in effect since 1987. The system isdesigned to regulate the number of residentialallotments granted according to the GeneralPlan. The city council can grant a maximumaverage of 500 allotments per calendar year(for the succeeding year), no more than 1,000allotments in any one year and no more than1,500 allotments in any consecutive 3-year

period. Senior and low-income projects areexempt. The process requires allotments to beprocured prior to submittal of a subdivisionmap and building permit application. If a proj-ect wishing to construct 30 units only obtains10 allocations, they can build the 10 but haveto wait to get the full allocation. sDesign guide-lines must be followed for approval of a permit;for instance pedestrian orientation. They triedusing a scoring system to achieve objectives(e.g., reduced car trips) but abandoned thesystem. For years in which building permitrequests are far lower than 500, the allotmentsystem is not used. The building permit quotasare now obsolete, according to the planningdirector, because the 500 unit maximum is notapproached.

In 1998, Petaluma adopted a 20-year urbangrowth boundary. The planning director saidthat it is not much different from the Urban


Services Areas (“sphere of influence”) already inplace but is a political message to communicatecompact urban form. They are finding that newdevelopment puts a strain on long-term opera-tion and maintenance of infrastructure becausecurrent fees do not pay for additional capacityneeded to service new homes off site (e.g., four-lane arterials feeding the area). They are lookingat increasing development fees or rejectingdevelopments that cost too much in upkeep orskew the balance of fragile environments (e.g.,floodplains). They charge Impact Fees averaging$20,000 per single-family house, and the plan-ning director stated that this amount is stillinadequate in the long term.

They have an affordable housing incentive sys-tem including city offset of Impact Fees and anoption to provide affordable housing or con-tribute to an “in-lieu” affordable housing fund.If a proposed development does not fit a plan,the building permit is denied, and the city doesnot participate in any of the infrastructure.

Revenue or tax base sharing is done for openspace and highway corridors. The growthstrategy has helped reduce the budget short-fall for capital improvements. The positiveunanticipated outcome has been the preserva-tion of the city’s identity achieved by prevent-ing sprawl and creating a green belt separatingthem and the neighboring municipalities.


Petaluma’s growth management effort hasbeen more city driven than county driven. Thecity of Petaluma has done platting and createdredevelopment districts with reduced ImpactFees and has refurbished infrastructure toattract development to blighted areas. The cityconstructs infrastructure in key locations toprovide a boost to revitalizing an area, e.g., aboardwalk on the riverfront, parking garages,new roadways, or storm drainage systems.

Petaluma is increasingly aware of the long-term responsibility for operation and mainte-nance of all new infrastructure built for devel-opment and incorporates the sharing ofresponsibility into Impact Fees, level of servicestandards, and permit approvals.


“City of Petaluma Residential GrowthManagement System” User’s guide,September 1991


www.ci.petaluma.ca.us Contact: Hans Grunt,Planning Director [email protected]

Capital Improvements Program contact:Mike Evert 707-778-4439


10.4.15 Portland Metro, Oregon

Growth Strategy TechniquesImplemented

• Urban Growth Boundary (1979)

• 2040 Regional Growth Concept (1995)

• Functional Plan (1996)

Lessons Learned

The State of Oregon passed legislation in 1973establishing a requirement for all cities todefine Urban Growth Boundaries separatingareas intended for development from thoseareas to remain and be preserved as farm andforest land. The objectives for the City ofPortland were to preserve neighborhood liv-ability and revitalize the downtown. As itbecame apparent that Portland needed a uni-fied boundary around all jurisdictions in theregion, the growth management plan wasdeveloped and administered by a regionalplanning authority called “Metro.”

Metro is an elected regional government com-prised of three counties: Multnomah(Portland), Clackamass, and Washington andcontains 24 cities. The area covers 460 squaremiles, 369 of which are in the urban growthboundary. Metro was formed in 1979, whenvoters of the region approved the transitionfrom an appointed council of governments(Columbia Region Association of Governments- CRAG) to an elected body. In 1992 votersapproved a home-rule charter that establishedMetro as having primary responsibility forregional land-use and transportation plan-ning. The charter also outlines Metro's otherresponsibilities, such as solid waste disposal;operation of arts and cultural facilities, parksand the zoo; and any other functions assignedto Metro by the voters.

Metro created a boundary to provide a 20-yearcapacity for growth that was based on estab-lished sewer service areas. Metro works close-ly with Tri-Met, the regional transit agencythat set up the light rail system.

More recently, Metro has been working withlocal governments to develop the “Region2040” planning process to set basic policies forthe form and character of the area for the next50 years. A 50-year planning horizon allowsplanners to overcome limitations of a 20-yearhorizon, anticipating major long-term shifts insettlement patterns, effects of new road andtransit networks on location, and density ofdevelopment and rural development outsidethe Urban Growth Boundary.

An affordable housing policy requires half ofall residential zoning to allow multifamily useand establishes minimum density targets ofsix to 10 units per acre for each jurisdiction. Alarge-scale public involvement process sur-veyed and interviewed citizens about whatissues are important to them.


Developers criticized the formation of theboundary because it was too tight, especiallyfor industrial development or because theywere being forced to develop in less desirableareas. Scarce vacant land created a situationof higher density development with lot sizes athalf of what they were previously. Becausegrowth management has been required, therehas been a considerable amount of coordina-tion and planning for the last 25 years, andcitizens are very conscious, knowledgeable,and involved in planning issues.

One motivation for growth management was topreserve agricultural and forest land sur-rounding the urban areas. Albuquerque hassome of these land uses in surrounding areasbut may not have the same pressure forpreservation.

The process used by Metro in its currentgrowth planning project sounds similar to thePlanned Growth Strategy. Metro developedand evaluated three growth alternatives

Based on the technical findings of the alterna-tives evaluated and almost 17,000 responsesfrom a citizen’s survey, the Metro staff con-structed a recommended plan for considera-


tion and adoption by the Metro council. Theplan’s central objective is to house 1.8 millionresidents, including 720,000 new residents,within the present growth boundary throughdevelopment and redevelopment of compactcenters and corridors served by high-capacityrail and bus systems. The plan includes:

• Limit the expansion of the Urban GrowthBoundary to 14,500 acres of urban reserve,phased in over 50 years.

• Increase density of single-family homes byreducing the average lot size from 13,000 to6,700 square feet and accommodating 20%of this market into townhouses, duplexes,or small-lot developments.

• Focus 1/3 of residential development intransit corridors and station areas.

• Redevelop 19,000 acres of developed landfor more intensive uses and designate 1/3 ofthe region’s buildable land for mixed-usedevelopment.

• Accommodate 2/3 of new jobs in centers oralong corridors and main streets served bytransit.

• Focus compact development, redevelop-ment, and transit and highway improve-ments in seven regional centers in additionto central Portland, all of which would beconnected by light rail lines.

• Recognize that significant growth of bothhousing and jobs will occur in neighboringcities.

Metro’s implementation style involves educat-ing the citizenry and building consensusrather than imposing regulatory control. Itworks through local agencies to accomplishmost of its aims.

Portland, Oregon Transit

Instead of building a new freeway, a light railtransit line was developed. The first line builtby Tri-Met was from Portland east to Gresham,the second line went west to Hillsboro, and athird north/south line is planned. Bus andrail account for 3% of all trips.


2040 Metro Plan from Website

Profiles in Growth Management, Doug Porter,Urban Land Institute


www.metro.dst.or.us Mark Turpel, LongRange Planning Manager, [email protected]

Capital Improvements Program and Budgetinfo available at 503-797-1616

Growth Management Plan available athttp://www.metro-region.org/growth/tfplan/funcsum.html

Maps available at http://mazama.metro-region.org/mapoptix_metromap/metromap-start.cfm


10.4.16 Salem, Oregon


• Urban Growth Boundary (1972)

• Council Designates Urban Service Areas(facilities) (1979)

• Intergovernmental agreements

• Growth management and land-use deci-sions must be incorporated intoComprehensive Plans and consistent withneighboring jurisdictions

• Zoning code implements the plan

• Target areas included in the CapitalImprovements Program

Urban growth boundary predicts land neededfor 20-year supply of residential, commercial,and industrial development. All neighboringjurisdictions are part of the boundary plan andlaw requires complete consensus to changeboundaries. Within the Urban GrowthBoundary, the council designates an urbanservice area (urban facilities area) and can redraw the boundaries guided by munici-pal code Chapter 66 “Urban GrowthManagement.” The line can be redrawn only iffacilities are in place or fully committed (e.g.,budgeted in the Capital ImprovementsProgram). If a developer goes outside the urbanservice boundary (but within the urban growthboundary) the developer pays all facilities andservices. If new developments fill in, ImpactFees may pay back the first developer. Noincentives are provided through the impact fee system. Target areas are included in theCapital Improvements Program.

Lessons Learned

Oregon state law prohibits extending beyondurban growth boundaries. State law creates alevel playing field in which all jurisdictionshave to develop growth management plansand agree on boundaries. The necessity for

consensus with neighbors makes it difficult tochange boundaries. Mediation is sometimesneeded to get areas to expand. Ballot initiativeis being circulated to require voter approvaleach time an area would be annexed. The zon-ing code chapter covering growth managementrequires compliance with the ComprehensivePlan, and cites need to collect an increasedshare of the costs of growth through “systemdevelopment charges” collected from thatgrowth because of public reluctance to acceptcontinual increases in the cost of local govern-ment. The urban service area is adjusted peri-odically to insure that a 10-year supply of landis available to prevent artificial increases inprices.


The council and commission could designateurban service areas funded through theCapital Improvements Program and ImpactFees. Salem found that a 10 year supply ofland is adequate to keep prices down and keepinfrastructure development manageable.


Chapter 66, Urban Growth Management ofthe City of Salem Municipal Code.


David Pratt, principal planner, current plan-ning 503-588-6173 [email protected]


10.4.17 San Diego, California


• Urban Service Areas/Tiered Growth (1979)

• Adequate Public Facilities/Concurrency(1970s)

• Transit-Led Infrastructure Planning (1986)

• Facilities Benefit Assessment/VariegatedImpact Fees (1982)

• Some areas use the “Mello-Roos” approachfor funding facilities

4

Lessons Learned

San Diego (1995 population 1.2 million, 320square miles) is California’s southernmostlarge city and is one of the fastest growing met-ropolitan areas in California and the nation.From 1975–1990, the region gained an averageof 55,000 new residents per year. During the1980s the region attracted 175,000 new jobs(85% in high tech industries).

In the 1970s, they adopted a policy to requireadequate public facilities concurrently withproposed developments. In 1979, the cityadopted the “Tiered Growth” program aimed topromote infill and redevelopment while ensur-ing funding for adequate facilities at theurbanizing fringe. The plan established fourtiers of development going out in concentriccircles from the core: (1) Urbanized; (2)Planned Urbanizing; (3) Future Urbanizing(Urban Reserve); and (4) Parks and OpenSpace. Fees are set at different levels to reflectactual cost and help target development. Infilland redevelopment are not charged anyImpact Fees while fringe development ischarged substantial fees. Originally, the planwas intended to redirect suburban growth tothe central city and to use property tax rev-enues for improving facilities in inner neigh-borhoods. However, this policy was derailedbefore it could take effect because ofProposition 13 (1978) which rolled back prop-erty assessments to their 1975 market valueand limited property taxes to 1% of propertyvalue. A year later, the Gann initiative tied the

growth of state and local spending to inflationand population growth rates. The second eventthat undermined San Diego’s central-citydevelopment policy was the uncertain legalstatus of Impact Fees as a funding device. Torespond to this issue, the city formulated the Facilities Benefit Assessment program in1982 to allocate facility costs to development.Capital improvements for transportation,parks, fire protection, libraries, and other facil-ities were mapped out and costs were estimat-ed. The cost estimates were allocated to antic-ipated development and paid upon permitrequest. The revenues remained on deposit ina special fund until expended for planned facil-ities. However, development groups brought alegal challenge to the fees. The collected feeswere in limbo for several years during litiga-tion, holding up improvements. The relianceon revenues from Impact Fees to pay for facil-ities meant that the city had limited funds toinvest in facilities in inner-city neighborhoodsbecause Impact Fees in the inner city werenegligible and there is no CapitalImprovements Program. The court establishedthe city’s right to levy fees in 1987. Fundingfacilities in the inner city remains problematic.

Since the early 1980s, the Facilities BenefitAssessment ordinance created a method todistribute the actual cost of facilities to devel-opers based on the location, type, and size ofthe proposed construction. The financing plangoes 30 years into the future and is adjustedannually. These fees are paid by the developer,and the price varies greatly if it is in an urbanized area with existing infrastruc-ture or in a new area with no existing infra-structure. The Facilities Benefit Assessment is attached to each property as a lien. TheFacilities Benefit Assessment is paid when abuilding permit is pulled. Developers pay forall infrastructure costs associated with adevelopment, even freeway interchanges orcollector roads if applicable. Because the true cost of facilities construction is built intothe Facilities Benefit Assessment, location of development becomes dependent uponwhether the market can support the costrather than requiring or denying location of development. (Average fee is $15,000


–$20,000, ranging from $5,000 in the innercity to $29,000 where no facilities exist). Analternative method in the suburban areas isbased on state legislation (Mello-Roos) thatallows bonding of facilities; the home buyerpays a fee on their tax assessment for 20-30years. One problem with the Facilities BenefitAssessment system is that some facilities,such as parks, can not be built until enoughdevelopment has occurred to build up thebank of those fees.

A project can not be built or expanded unlessit is in a community plan. If a developer stillwants to build, a plan amendment is needed toget a facilities financing plan.

In 1985, a voter initiative required voterapproval for reclassifying future urbanizingland to allow development. The city council alsodid not want to reclassify this land. In 1987,the council enacted an 18-month InterimDevelopment Ordinance that limited buildingpermits throughout the city to 8,000 per year(about half the demand of the previous year).Almost all the communities surrounding SanDiego also adopted growth limits.

San Diego has instituted a public transit sys-tem with light rail and bus connections. TheSan Diego Metropolitan Transit DevelopmentBoard was created by the state in 1975 andopened the first light rail line in 1981. The orig-inal 16 miles have been extended to more thandouble that. In 1986, the city council enacted apolicy to support public transit by having tran-sit as an integral component of all major plan-ning programs. And in 1992, San Diegobecame the first jurisdiction in the nation toadopt transit-oriented development and designguidelines. The planner interviewed ssaid thatthey have not had great success implementingtransit-led infrastructure planning citywide butdo encourage denser development at transitnodes and have a few examples to show, suchas the trolley stations located at the region’slargest office project, a new shopping mall, anda multi-modal center downtown. As a result,they have increased transit commuting by 40%

in the 1980s, and air quality has improved andcongestion is not as bad as it could be.

In his book, Profiles in Growth Management,Doug Porter points out flaws in the San Diegosystem. The system resulted in a significantincrease in central city development. However,much of the infill was poorly designed andincompatible with existing residential neigh-borhoods. They had a policy on paper torequire compatibility but did not enforce it.“Unattractive apartment buildings sprang upin low density sites and structures rose onprime waterfront sites blocking views. The fail-ure of the facilities funding program to deliverneeded facilities in changing neighborhoodshas never been resolved.” The administrationseemed to focus on short-term planning crisesand not on long-range planning. They havewaited a long time to replace their “antiquated”zoning system. Developers have had difficultydealing with an “increasingly militant citizenryand developing in a high-cost environmentthat is subject to many kinds of fees and exac-tions and progressively restrictive regulations.More than in most areas, however, developerswho win project approval in San Diego stand togain from their semi-monopolistic status.”

In Doug Porter’s view, “The tier system isalmost certainly responsible for San Diego’sescalating housing costs (due to scarcity ofdevelopable land) and for stimulating develop-ment outside the city boundaries in a host ofsuburban communities, thus dispersing thefuture city across more territories. These areeffects of the growth management system.”Porter asserts that the tier system was bothtoo broad because it lacked detailed neighbor-hood planning and not broad enough becauseit should have involved a county-level growthpolicy. On the forgiving side, San Diego had anunusually high rate of growth and develop-ment to cope with, and the tier system andpay-as-you-go infrastructure financing hasproduced high quality facilities. Also, a largeinflux of immigrant population put stress onthe inner-city housing and school system,leading to overcrowding.



According to an Urban Land Institute analysis,San Diego provides the lesson that stop-and-go planning in a growth environment is notsufficient. “The establishment of growth sec-tors is not a stand-alone policy, a growth sec-tors policy must recognize the likely implica-tions for regional development and anticipateneeds for neighborhood level planning andprogramming.” Similarly, it demonstrates thatImpact Fees can not be the sole source offunds for facilities. San Diego’s center city isharmed by the lack of a Capital ImprovementsProgram and the restrictions set forth frompublic referendums such as Proposition 13.

Development in San Diego jumped over theboundaries into the county. They would havebenefited from a countywide planning pro-gram. The tier system is not enough as astand-alone policy but needs to be supportedby both neighborhood level planning andbroader regional planning and programming.It is a long-term effort and would need to bedynamic to stay relevant to the changing needsof the area.


Profiles in Growth Management, by DougPorter, The Urban Institute, 1996.


www.sannet.gov

Charlene Gabriel, Facilities Finance Manager619-533-5964 [email protected] Fiske Planning and DevelopmentReview

Angeles Leira, Principal [email protected]

Chief Planner of metro transit developmentboard: Bill Lieberman

San Diego Regional Association ofGovernment: George Frank

Transit Planning: Nancy [email protected]

New Growth Strategy being developed:Colleen Frost [email protected]

10.4.18 Tempe, Arizona


• Infill and Redevelopment

Lessons Learned

Tempe is a fixed boundary community that issurrounded by three million people in thePhoenix metro area. All facilities and servicesare in place, and there is no place to expandboundaries. Two years ago, they developed aComprehensive Plan specifically for the plan-ning process for infill and redevelopment.They divided the city into nine planning areasand are going systematically area by area, tak-ing inventory to determine what is good andbad in the community and working with neigh-borhoods to put together specific area plans.Implementation plans follow. They startedwith the older sections and looked for the full

range of mixed-use zoning to lead todense/intense development. Neighborhoodsare seeking more pedestrian friendly designsand access to small “mom and pop” shops.They are looking at developing new groundlevel shops and upper level residential or com-mercial.

The downtown is attracting residential andcommercial activity through creative use ofland and structures. At the Shared VisionTown Hall, David Fackler, the Tempe plannershowed an example of rebuilding structuresdowntown where parking is at street level anda “mini-neighborhood” of multifamily dwellingsare built on top with a plaza area. They areinstalling wireless service downtown so thatcommerce can be flexible and mobile (“A busi-ness person can operate out of the local coffeeshop through their laptop and wireless con-nection”).


The city also stimulates redevelopment byacquiring property and creating a seed devel-opment. They acquire blighted property andmake improvements and put out an RFP onthe development site. Backed by the power ofredevelopment funds and eminent domain, thehave acquired, relocated, demolished, andcleaned up environmental problems and thensold properties. Budget surpluses are ear-marked to a redevelopment fund for these pur-poses.

Impact Fees are reduced in target areas. Theyuse a creative tax financing technique to pro-vide a property tax discount to development of new buildings. Through government lease-back of new or renovated buildings, they lowerthe effective tax approximately 20%. In redevelopment areas, the state can abate the“giblet” tax for up to eight years. These toolsare used for attracting large-scale develop-ments and major corporate offices to down-town. They are not used for every developmentbecause the city does not want to end up witha white elephant. Another incentive to attractdevelopment included government fundedparking structures for employees of a majoremployer during the day and for entertainmentseekers at night. For instance, America WestAirlines brought in 2,400 employees downtownand requested the city to pay for 1,300 parkingspaces. The city always expects a 10-year pay-back on tax incentives or other developmentboosts. They do not go into a developmentunless it is a good investment.


The land values in Tempe are high becausethey in the middle of the booming Phoenixmetro area. The airport is located in Tempe,and a lot of traffic passes through. Downtowncan support high end housing and commercialbecause of the location.

Albuquerque could benefit from having wire-less technology or cable modem or other fast-Internet connections in commercial districts, if

not citywide. This will help Albuquerque tapinto the high technology boom and attract andretain dynamic and expanding businesses.

Since Mr. Fackler stayed in downtown Albu-querque in October 1999, he offered sugges-tions to make the area feel more welcoming.Though the Doubletree Hotel is located justseveral blocks from the historic district, he feltlike it was disconnected and isolated. Hethought that Civic plaza could have somekiosk restaurants and café’s built into the cor-ners to make it more inviting and lively. Itcould become a more usable public space ifthere were reasons for people in the surround-ing buildings to come and eat lunch there, etc.He said that shutting off the trolley at 5:30gave visitors a message that there is nothing todo or go to. He also thought buildings are turn-ing their back on the street and suggested cre-ating more of a “street edge” with windowshopping or other ways to make walking downthe street more comfortable and safe. Hethought making downtown a “destinationpoint” after 5:30 p.m. would help.

The concept of using a budget surplus forredevelopment is intriguing. It also is intrigu-ing for the city to approach redevelopment as a“seed” effort by purchasing blighted properties,improving them, and packaging them for rede-velopment and sale. Like Austin, Tempe doesnot enter into a redevelopment project or pro-vide tax incentives unless it is a good invest-ment. Tempe always expects a 10-year pay-back on tax incentives or other developmentboosts.


Shared Vision Town Hall documents


www.tempe.gov Dave Fackler, DeputyDirector, Development Services 480-350-8028, 480-350-8587 [email protected]


10.4.19 Thurston County, Washington


• Urban Growth Boundaries (1983, 1990)

• Transfer of Development Rights

Lessons Learned

Thurston County is located in the southernpart of western Washington at Puget Sound. Itcontains 735 square miles, of which nearly93% is unincorporated and includes Olympia,Tumwater, Lacy, and smaller cities.

In 1983, the three largest cities in the countyestablished boundaries for the extension ofutilities, as a response to residents’ concernsabout sprawl during the 1970s. The State ofWashington passed the Growth ManagementAct in 1990 requiring counties to create plansamong cities and Comprehensive Plans toimplement the plan. The state act also requirescapital facility plans designed to implement theland-use plan and annual budget. The planshould demonstrate how services will be pro-vided for the anticipated population for the nextsix years and is tied to levels of service. Byencouraging development within the bound-aries, the rural area can be reserved for timber,agriculture, and gravel mining. Joint plansbetween the cities established final growthboundaries in 1995. Requirements for densitywere the tool used for establishing urban andrural areas. The urban area has a minimum offour dwelling units per acre, and the ruralareas have a maximum of one dwelling unit perfive acres. Though the state law requires zoningand density regulations to be consistent withthe Comprehensive Plan, the stated require-ment of 1 du/5 acres has still allowed farms tobe converted to subdivisions. Since these areasare outside the boundary, they use wells andseptic tanks. Water and sewer lines are extend-ed by developers, and they pay 100% for thatinfrastructure. The city Capital ImprovementsProgram in Olympia does not pay for extendingwater and sewer facilities. Hook-up feesincreased from $800 to $3,000 to shift the costof building new treatment capacity. As a vacant

area develops, the “first one in” gets reimbursedthrough “latecomer” agreements.

Similar to King County, Thurston Countyestablished benchmarks to track progresstoward achieving the goals of the 1990Washington State Growth Management Act.Through Comprehensive Plans and county-wide planning policies, they establishedbenchmarks and monitor indicators over time.The Benchmarks Indicators program meas-ures the results of efforts in comprehensiveplanning and will be updated annually. Thefirst report (baseline) was published in 1996.Data in the report are grouped into five cate-gories: Growth, Transportation, Economy,Environment, and Housing. Each categoryincludes descriptions of the state act goals andcounty-wide planning policies that will affectfuture activity within the given category. Therehas been extensive collaboration between thecounty and three main cities because theyshare a sewer utility. A regional transportationcouncil plans for the whole jurisdiction. Theyhave a Transfer of Development Rights pro-gram to preserve agricultural areas. The devel-opment rights can be traded for higher densi-ty.

The state can impose penalties for not follow-ing the plan, including withholding of roadfunding or sales tax revenues. Developersmust meet certain requirements to get a build-ing permit. No permits are provided in forestryzones if greater than one unit per 80 acres.

The planner interviewed thought that housingprices had more to do with the regional econo-my than with the growth management plan.She also thought that people locate accordingto affordability and lot size. Thurston county isa draw for people from Tacoma looking forlower cost housing, and people who want largelots leave the urban growth areas. She thoughtthat regional factors also influence the accessto affordable housing.

Design standards have aimed at making high-er density housing more attractive. Theemphasis on higher level of service standards


has improved the quality of the built environ-ment through emphasis on parks and openspace and improvement of street standards.

Temporary moratoriums on building permitsare used periodically during times of ground-water flooding in the wet season.


Thurston County contains the state capitaland a large, rural land area. Yet it is growingquickly as a lower cost alternative for neigh-boring counties (e.g., Tacoma). Regional plan-ning is required by state law, but the countyand region have seen a number of benefitsAlbuquerque could share. For instance, plan-ning how projected population will be servedfor the next six years helps the area plan con-struction of infrastructure and facilities. Plansspell out areas for development and expecta-tions of public and private investment in facil-

ities. Albuquerque could link building permitsfor projects to the objectives outlined in theplan.


Information from the Website


www.trpc.org Jackie Kettman, SeniorPlanner [email protected]

http://www.wa.gov/ - Access Washingtonand Find-It! Washington http://find-it.state.wa.us/compass


1. See Section 10.4.6 for the listof benchmarks.

2. Original technique categor-ies included: (1) UrbanService Areas/Tiered Growth;(2) Urban Growth Boun-daries; (3) Transit-Led Infra-structure Planning; (4) ZoningIncentives; (5) Adequate Pub-lic Facilities Requirements/Concurrency; (6) FocusedPublic Investment Plans orProject Specific Capital Im-provements Program; (7) Infilland Redevelopment; and (8)Building Permit or UtilityHook-up Quotas.

3. Proposition 13 voter referen-dum set the maximum prop-erty tax rate at 1% of thevalue of the property. Thevalue of property was set atits 1975–1976 level, butallowed to increase by therate of inflation, up to 2%each year. Property could berevalued only upon a changeof ownership. No new proper-ty taxes can be imposed. Anyspecial taxes need to beapproved by two-thirds of thevoters. The state was put in

charge of allocating the pro-ceeds of the locally leviedproperty tax. Source: Propo-sition 13: Some UnintendedConsequences, Jeffrey I.Chapman, Public PolicyInstitute of California, Uni-versity of Southern Califor-nia. September 1998.

4. A method of financing infra-structure for new develop-ments is a new type of debtinstrument called the Mello-Roos bond (named after thetwo legislators who carriedthe legislation in 1982). It isused to finance any infra-structure or selected servicesin a geographically definedpiece of land called a “com-munity facilities district.”This undeveloped area, canbe irregularly shaped andmay be drawn with "holes" toexclude particular sections(e.g., developed land). Two-thirds of the voters of thearea, or landowners repre-senting two-thirds of the landin the area (who have votesdistributed based on theamount of land they own),can vote to issue debt for

capital improvements in thecommunity facilities district.A lien is then placed againstthe property. As the propertyis subdivided, each home-owner is responsible for thepayment of a share of thedebt (which shows up on thehomeowner’s property taxbill). The local jurisdiction isnot the agency that issuesthe debt and is therefore notlegally responsible for thesecurity of the debt.

Operationally, Mello-Roosdebt has replaced some of theproperty tax that the home-owner might have faced priorto Proposition 13 but may behigher because Mello-Roosdebt is more expensive thanGeneral Obligation debtbecause of its higher risk.Source: Proposition 13: SomeUnintended Consequences,Jeffrey I. Chapman, PublicPolicy Institute of California,University of SouthernCalifornia, September 1998.

NotesSection 3


Appendix AInterview Form

Date Interviewed:Technique:

City (or County): State:Contact Person: Title:

Phone Number:E-mail address:Address:Other Contacts to follow up:

I. Background Info:

1. Can you please describe what technique you have used to plan and manage growth?

A. What were the main objectives of the plan?

B. I have a few more questions, but while I’m thinking of it, please send materials tome, Myra Segal Friedmann at City of Albuquerque, City Council Office, 9th FloorPO Box 1293, Albuquerque, NM 87103. Fax: 505-768-3227.

2. When was the growth plan implemented?

3. Have there been any significant changes to the plan?

4. Have there been departures from the plan?

A. How effective was the plan in managing development?)

5. What is the area covered by the plan? (Include phase-in)

A. Approx. land area:

B. Approx. population of the affected area:

6. Where did the impetus for plan come from? (e.g., state, regional, local, community):

7. What was the extent of collaboration between levels of government?

II. Infrastructure Planning and Financing:

1. Was the plan linked to a facility extension plan or Capital ImprovementsProgram? How?

2. Were incentives provided to encourage development in the planned areas? For instance:


A. Included in Capital Improvements Program?

B. Reduced Impact Fees?

C. Simplified building permit approval process?

D. Others?

3. Are there disincentives or penalties for not following the plan? What are they?

4. Was population and employment growth targeted to different parts of the urban area in different time periods, such as for five-year periods?

5. Did the Capital Improvements Program under the growth plan include specific projects which would serve the expected population and employment in these areas?

6. Were property owners involved with decisions to build the specific projects in the priority growth areas, or did development just tend to follow the development of infrastructure? How were they involved?

7. Have infrastructure and services kept pace with construction in newer areas and maintenance in older areas since implementation of the growth management program?

For Concurrency only:

A. How does your infrastructure concurrency program work?

B. Do the infrastructure and services have to be in the Capital ImprovementsProgram or other plan prior to construction?

C. Can the developer build the infrastructure in partnership with the city?

D. Can the developer finance the infrastructure through (e.g., Impact Fees)?

III. Housing, Transportation, Infrastructure, and Employment Impact Starts:

1. Have any community problems occurred as a result of the growth management program? How so?

For each of the following issues, would you give it a score of (1) No, did not happen; (2) Somewhat/little, or (3) Significantly. Other Factors (y/n)

A. Housing cost increased

B. Housing jumped over the growth boundary

C. Employment growth fell

D. Jobs were created over the growth boundary

E. Access to affordable housing was compromised.

F. Traffic increased

G. Other

For each problem identified, could these changes have been a result of factors other than thegrowth plan (e.g., cyclical changes in the economy or employment layoffs or new job growth)?


2. Have any community benefits occurred as a result of the growth management program?

How so? For each of the following issues, would you give it a score of (1) No, did not happen;(2) Somewhat/little, or (3) Significantly. Other Factors (y/n)

A. Infrastructure kept better pace with growth.

B. Housing starts increased

C. Housing quality increased

D. The number of jobs increased

E. Better quality jobs were created

F. The quality of the built environment increased.

G. Public transportation use increased.

H. Other alternative transportation modes increased.

I. Traffic decreased

J. Jobs moved closer to housing.

K. Other

For each benefit identified, could these changes been a result of factors other than the growthplan? (e.g., cyclical changes in the economy or employment layoffs or new job growth?

3.

A. Has accessibility to affordable housing changed after the implementation of thegrowth management program?

B. Are there special programs to increase affordable housing as part of the growthmanagement plan?

IV. Financing:

1. What percentage does the public and private sector pay for services and facilities?

2. Is there tax base sharing? How does that work? Do urban, suburban, ex-urban, and rural jurisdictions share tax revenues?

A. Has tax revenue sharing been a boon or drain on the major municipality?

3. How is operation and maintenance of infrastructure financed?

4. Is there a change in the quality of public services or facilities as a result of the growth strategy?


V. Additional Outcome Information if Available

1. Has there been a noticeable impact on the city or county budget?

2. Has there been an increased shortfall for capital improvements or has any shortfall declined as a result of the growth strategy?

3. Has there been an increase or decrease in taxes or utility rates since implementation due to the implementation of the growth plan?

VI. Location of commercial and industrial development relative to residential:

1. Have jobs located near new housing developments as a result of the strategic growth plan?

2. Do you have information on the Jobs:Housing ratio?

3. Have major employers moved in or out of the area?

A. What impacts has this had?

Contact person or report for more information:

VII. Public Relations:

1. How did you build a broad base of public support and buy-in? (e.g., development community, neighborhoods, advocacy organizations). Did you “market” the program?

VIII. Other Impacts:

1. What unanticipated outcomes have there been from this growth management program?

Positive:

Negative:

IX. Questions Applicable to Certain Techniques:

1. For Growth Boundaries and Urban Service Areas: Do growth boundaries or urban service Areas get revisited and redrawn?

2. For Transfer of Development Rights:

A. How long does the Transfer of Development Rights process take?

B. Approximately how many transfers are done annually? (Large or small?)


3. For Infill and Redevelopment: Who were partners in downtown revitalization work? What were results?

4. For Urban Growth Boundaries only:

A. Is growth “discouraged” inside the growth boundaries during certain time periods?

B. Is growth “prohibited” inside or outside the growth boundaries during certaintime periods?

5. For Infill and Redevelopment only:

A. Did the infill and redevelopment plan successfully impact the target areas?

B. Did the infill and redevelopment plan also effect growth in the metro area?

6. For Building Permit and Water/Sewer Quotas: Do permit and utility hook-up quotas change over time?


Interviews organized by the category oforiginal assignment:

Urban Service Areas/DesignatedDevelopment Policy Areas/ Tiered Growth

San Diego, CA

Metropolitan Council, MN

Orlando, FL

Flagstaff, AZ

Austin, TX

Urban Growth Boundaries

Portland, OR

Boulder, CO

Lincoln, NE

King County, WA

Thurston County, WA

Lexington, KY (2/18/00)

Transit-led Infrastructure Planning

Portland, OR

King County, WA

San Diego, CA

Zoning Incentives

Fort Collins, CO

Petaluma, CA

Montgomery County, MD

Adequate Public FacilitiesRequirements/Concurrency

Fort Collins, CO

Montgomery County, MD

Carlsbad, CA

Focused Public Investment Plans orProject Specific Capital ImprovementsProgram

Salem, OR

Infill and Redevelopment

Tempe, AZ

Minneapolis, MN

Building Permit or Utility Hook-up Quotas

Carlsbad, CA

Madison, WI

Appendix BList of Interviewed Locations