Monday, April 7, 2008

A Look at Impact Fees

As I was standing in the shower this morning (March 7), and I'm thinking through an Open Space Ordinance for the city. As I get finished, it hits me that a comprehensive OSD should encompass three things: (1) Preserving sensitive areas from future growth, (2) reclaiming sensitive areas that have already been developed and (3) providing linkages between already existing OS areas (these linkages could be built or environmental in nature).

In a public setting, it's very difficult to pass comprehensive, bottom-up legislation, the foremost reason being because it's difficult to handle extreme change. The City could pass legislation tomorrow that makes all city services private affairs (meaning each citizen would need to pay for police services on their own), but they won't because that is such a marked difference from practice. It's possible to gradually phase out city services in favor of the private sector (trash collection is a good example), but again time is a factor.

For this reason, it is unlikely that all three aspects of an Open Space Ordinance could be passed simultaneously. It would be much more politically prudent to attempt to pass all three at separate times. Since development is occurring at such a rapid pace, the second option is somewhat limited in scope. If we pass an ordinance to reclaim areas that have already been built upon (such as a stream and riparian area), it's possible that in twenty years, Little Rock might have reclaimed all the environmentally sensitive areas. At that point it would turn outwards and see how development has still occurred in the last twenty years claiming environmentally sensitive areas. Little Rock must then turn around and fund the acquisition of those lands. Until the fundamental problem of encouraging responsible development occurs, the city will not make significant headway into the preservation of city-wide open spaces.

If this logic holds true, then the natural course of action is to address future growth first. Once future development has been instilled with the virtue of conservation, then the city can work to reclaim environmentally sensitive areas. At the culmination of that time period, not only will lands within the city have been addressed, but also the future growth. At that point, the city can stop funding acquisition of new lands. It's an economic decision of process.

How can the city address new developments in the city by encouraging the conservation ethic? One method is by passing ordinances that forbid building on certain types of land (steep slopes, waterways, etc.). These types of ordinances are very restrictive, however, because they eliminate the function of land. Eliminating functionality can affect property values, which makes these types of ordinances (however positive in attributes) not well received by developers and the general public.

Another method of addressing the conservation ethic is to make it economically beneficial to do so (to take a page from my pet training hand-book: "Positive Reinforcement"). A more politically expedient method of doing so is for the City Council to implement Impact Fees. Impact Fees are one-time fees assessed to new developments to pay for infrastructure improvements off-site that can benefit those in the new development as well as others. These fees must go into an account to pay for specific functions.

So, let's follow a hypothetical developer wanting to build a typical subdivision. And just to simplify things, let's assume that the land is already zoned appropriately (so that we don't have to deal with messy re-zoning requests). Normally what happens is that a developer has the land mapped out for maximum occupancy. So on twenty acres, he might build 20-25 homes. He then divides the land into 20-25 roughly equal sections. He then draws in the roads and utility lines that will serve the subdivision, and then re-adjust based upon rationality. He then submits this design to the local planning department that reviews it against the Zoning Map and Text, calculates its impact on the roads, and then approves the permit or sends it to the Planning Board for review (this doesn't normally happen; if it's a sound design and the land is zoned as such, it normally passes permitting).

At this point, depening on the place, the city or the developer pays to put in the infrastructure requirements, and then the city will pay for the maintenance of said utilities (I'm including roads as a utility in this. Sewage and water lines would be the other ones). Now, these 25 new homes are going to use their new roads, water lines, etc. but they will also be using already existing roads and water lines. Moreover, since water comes from a central location(s) they will be using up the water plant's capacity. Eventually (after enough new developments), the city will be at capacity for providing water, so the city must build a new water pumping station (or treatment plant, etc.) to provide more water for further growth.

With impact fees, a city can assess a new development a cost that the new development is imposing on the city. If a new development results in a consumption of enough water to warrant building a new water plant, then a percentage of that total cost should be assessed to the new developments.

So, over the course of ten years, let's anticipate that five new subdivisions like the one mentioned above, will be built. When all developments are fully built and house people, they will place a cumulative effect of a million gallons of water on the city (all these numbers are fictitious). Since the city is at capacity already, we can anticipate that adding a million gallons of water capacity will cost the city $100,000. To assess an appropriate cost, we could divide $100,000 by five to yield a cost of $20,000 per development. The city would then impose an Impact Fee of $20,000 per development to provide for the additional capacity that must be built.

In reality, the somewhat arbitrary numbers I threw around earlier would not be used. A study would be made of types of houses, the density of land, placement of the development, etc. While I think that Impact Fees should be imposed on all developments for all new services, as it pertains to the conservation ethic, only a Park/OS Impact Fee will be addressed here.

Since in our above scenario our developer did not take into account the contours of the land, he most likely had 25 parcels of property with various states of usefulness. Ten properties may have a creek running through their backyard. Another two may have a boggy area. Five of them may have a steep slope that prevents any useful activity. In an ideal world, those sensitive areas would be classified as Open Space and would be preserved from development. Since most developers will not, however, then the city will have to provide a park or open space area at another location. This will impose a cost upon the city, which would normally be shared by the rest of the city's population (a population that has already paid for their park services and aren't creating new demand; they are maintaining old demand). The city should turn around and impose a cost (an Impact Fee) on the development for having to provide new Park/OS services.

This method does allow a city to provide new parkland in growing sections of the city; however, it doesn't automatically protect the most sensitive of environmental areas (in my head, I automatically think of water). Furthermore, these funds are almost always demanded in the form of Active-Recreation, such as a baseball field, over flat, open parkland. There's no guarantee that these funds will be used for OS.

A city could, however, make a further provision in the Impact Fee Ordinance that developers who provide a certain percentage of land in their development as communal OS will be exempt from the Impact Fee. The developer can establish an easement with the city, where the city retains the right and the cost to preserve/maintain the land, or the developer can leave it under the control of the neighborhood property owners. Since additional costs could theoretically be assigned to different types of developable terrain, this means that additional deferral of costs could be implemented for those developers that make an effort to design the subdivisions around the natural features of the land. These Conservation Subdivisions usually have smaller lots, but the nature of the subdivision doesn't affect home size. Essentially, the property owners own smaller acreage next to a park, but don't have to pay for the park or take care of it themselves.

There are definite pros and cons to Impact Fees, but for the purposes of conservation in future subdivisions, they definitely warrant a further look (maybe next time!).

Thursday, April 3, 2008

San Diego

I've spent the last few days researching San Diego on the recommendations of the Open Space Review Committee.

Essentially San Diego's OS Policy centers around a conservation ethics, since there are more endangered and environmentally sensitive species in San Diego county than in any other county in California. What follows is the report I sent to Mark with an expanded commentary at the end.

The city of San Diego implemented an open space element into their General Plan in 1979.[1] In 2003, San Diego had a population of approximately 1,266,753 people dispersed over 324 square miles.[2] When looking at Figure 1, it is apparent that the total developed urban area of the city has grown 39%, from 79,067 to 110,044. Grassland, shrubland, and tree cover have decreased from a collective 127,647 acres to 96,368 acres. The current urban forest system has a total stormwater retention capacity of 82 million cubic feet. Without trees, the city would have to build $164 million in infrastructure to accommodate the runoff.[3] The forest system also removes 4.3 million pounds of pollutants from the air at a value of $10.8 million annually.[4] The trees also sequester (absorb) 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually and store 1.2 million tons collectively as biomass. [5] As the urban area of the city has grown, the “green” area of the city has decreased diminishing the ability of flora to reduce runoff and counter pollution. Continuing this trend could seriously damage the city’s ability to counter the effects of sprawl and the imprint of urbanization.
Figure 1—City of San Diego Landcover Change Trends (1985-2002)[*]

1985 acres 2002 acres 2002 Percent Percent change
Urban
79,067 110,044 51% 39%
Grassland
71,988 48,674 22% -32%
Shrubland
35,565 32,956 15% -7%
Tree Cover
20,094 14,738 7% -27%
Other
10,827 11,151 5% 0%
Total
217,542 217,564 100% 0%
[My apologies for the lack of formatting on the above table. I cut and pasted a Word document that didn't translate, and I don't have the time to make it pretty.]
The city’s Open Space Division within the Department of Parks and Recreation has been responsible for managing the open spaces within the city (including the Park Rangers in OS parks) and implementing the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). In 1996, the MSCP was established to further aid in the protection of native endangered plant and animal species. San Diego county has the most endangered species in California,[6] but funding from sources such as the Environmental Growth Fund aren’t sufficient to cover the complete costs of management;[7] According to Paul Kilburg with the Open Space Division of the San Diego Parks and Recreation Department, these funds aren’t nearly enough to acquire all of the land that the city has been tasked with acquiring;[8] therefore, most of their funding comes from the city’s general fund. In the past, as some lands have become conservation districts because of endangered species, property owners have surrendered their land to the city or minimally developed it (25%).[9] This has provided the city with some land to preserve as open space, but it is not a guaranteed method of acquiring land.
Luckily, San Diego at large has a friendly nature toward the natural environment. Community volunteers actively help in revitalizing and maintaining parks, even if it is just to help build a ranger kiosk. There is not an overt hostility to parks in general. Also, the Sierra Club has gotten involved in creating “Friends of-” groups to help inform and mobilize the public to participate in the park process.[10]
Currently, the department is working on a Trails Master Plan, since it has been deficient in that area in the past. There are three-hundred plus miles of trails in the city that have not been properly mapped out or planned for.[11] Besides increasing funding, developing a plan for trails is the most important task for the open space division right now.
To address the 12 April 2007 comment (Karen) on the Open Space Blog regarding parks being unsafe, perhaps as the open space system becomes more advanced, Little Rock could implement a ranger system similar to the one in place in San Diego. Rangers make people feel safe by providing an on-site city authority figure. They do not have arrest powers, but they can issue tickets for misdemeanor offenses. Rangers can also provide tours or programming as the citizenry deems necessary.[12] Being on-site and mobile also allows the rangers to inform the central parks office of any issues that may arise regarding maintenance in the park.
[*] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3

[1] The City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan (1979) (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/gpfullversion.pdf. The open space element has since been combined with the conservation element in the current plan.
[2] Census.gov
[3] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3 (accessed 7 February 2008) http://americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_SanDiego.pdf
[4] Ibid. p.3&19 American Forests uses UFORE Model for Air Pollution, developed for the USDA Forest Service to calculate the amount of pollution deposited in tree canopies and sequestered. Dollar values for air pollutants are averaged from State Public Service Commissions in various states. Externality costs include indirect costs to society, such as healthcare from air pollution
[5] Ibid. p.3
[6] Phone conversation with Paul Kilburg February 8, 2008
[7] Paul Kilburg. San Diego City Charter, Article VII, Section 103.1establishes the Environmental Growth Fund which provides funding to pay the principle and interest on bonds that are issued for the acquisition of open space lands.[7]
[8] Paul Kilburg
[9] Paul Kilburg
[10] Paul Kilburg
[11] Paul Kilburg
[12] City of San Diego Park and Recreation Dept., Regional Parks Ranger Program (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml

I also developed a list of endangered/environmentally sensitive plants and animals in Pulaski County from the 2007 Annual Report of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, which is a division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage (DAH). Skip to pages 97-98 for Pulaski County listings.

Open Space Ordinances

Here's the list I developed last summer of various Open Space ordinances from around the United States:

Bucks County, Pennsylvania has a Model Ordinance regarding Performance Zoning in their District. This performance zoning sets Open Space Ratios for new developments as well as guidelines for developing (or not developing) certain areas. It is also very comprehensive in its listing of requirements for each specific residential land use. While this ordinance sets guidelines, it still allows developers high degrees of freedom to develop land in response to market conditions, while protecting critical resource areas.

San Francisco, California (Section 2) has a general open space policy, which is further developed for individual areas of the city. Their open space policy is part of a larger city scheme for protecting critical resources, such as waterways and sunlight. Little Rock could integrate a similar policy to address certain key areas, such as areas along Fourche Creek and the Arkansas River.

StormwaterCenter.net has resources on Open Space ordinances, as well as further information on the site on how to preserve stream buffers along waterways. Three open space ordinances are highlighted on this website (in addition to a Model Open Space Ordinance). Calvert County, MD, which focuses all or most of its design code around open spaces especially in the Rural Zoning District (RUR); Montgomery County, PA, which focuses its ordinance on Cluster Zoning or Open Space Residential Design, which seeks to minimize sprawl in residential development, by clustering houses closer together, leaving more common area or green space; and Hamburg Township, Michigan, which sets Open Space requirements, but also incorporates a commercial component for areas of 50+ acres, encouraging mixed-use developments.

Open Space Ordinance for the city of Oldsmar, Florida. Oldsmar's history dates to 1913 when automobile pioneer Ransom E. Olds purchased 37,541 acres (152 km²) of land by the northern part of Tampa Bay to establish 'R. E. Olds-on-the-Bay.' The name was later changed to Oldsmar, then to 'Tampa Shores' in 1927, and finally back to Oldsmar in 1937. Ransom Eli Olds named some of the original streets himself, such as Gim Gong Road. In recent years, Oldsmar has experienced explosive growth including the construction of many retail establishments as well as new hotels and industry which seem to mushroom up almost overnight. A new downtown is being developed which will bring back the 'old Florida' feel to the city.

The following is a scholarly examination of the methods available to local governments to conserve open spaces (i.e. impact fees, zoning types, etc.)Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States.

These last two documents were suggested to me by Phil Frana with the Honors College. Many thanks to his assistance.

Retroactivity

I have neglected this blog to a great degree, having undertaken several new initiatives since November. Among them is finishing up my thesis work for the Honors College at the University of Central Arkansas and resuming my internship with the Parks and Recreation Department of Little Rock. Both are related, but since there's more action packed into my internship I will begin my posts with the beginning of my internship.

January-esque
I've started my internship with the Parks and Recreation Department. I even have a title! Park Planning Specialist. Does it confer me any serious responsibilties? Not really...but it does establish me as an actual employee and not just an intern.

Of course, my internship is focused around developing an Open Space policy for the city. I'm not completely certain how I'll start. I'll need to do some consulting with Mark Webre (my boss) to find out what direction I should take. I get the feeling I'll just pick up where I left off last summer with a compendium of Open Space Ordinances from various cities.