Loading...
CPPC 02-08-93 Meeting AgendaFILE COP COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director % RE: Meeting Date and Agenda DATE: February 3, 1993 There will be a meeting of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee on February 8, 1993, at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room of the Old County Court House. Please let me know if you are unable to attend. AGENDA 1. Presentation from staff and discussion of ongoing planning efforts. 2. Suggestions from members for additional projects to be addressed. 3. Other 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 ONGOING PLANNING PROJECTS COUNTY HOUSING REPORT Staff has begun researching nation wide housing trends and issues and accumulating this information. Plans are to produce an area housing report that identifies trends and issues as well as proposing strategies for dealing with these issues. It is hoped that we can involve the City in this project and have a report that is relevant and useful for both jurisdictions. RURAL COMMUNITY CENTERS The study of alternative wastewater treatment methods for Rural Community Centers (focusing on the Round Hill, Clearbrook and Brucetown neighborhoods) is underway. A consultant was chosen in late January to conduct an evaluation of the information gathered to date for the three communities and develop recommendation for cost- effective alternative treatment methods as well as possible institutional or other arrangements for maintenance and operation. This facet of the study is expected to be underway later this month, and a report is expected roughly 90.days from the starting date. There are many other issues in relation to the treatment if Rural Community Centers remaining to be addressed. PLANNING ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED CORRIDOR PLANS The Chamber of Commerce is working toward the development of certain standards for entrance corridors into the area. Plans for corridors need to go much further however to address issues such as appropriate uses and traffic. Detailed plans should be developed to address all issues involved. An approach to the development of such plans needs to be devised. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNING An issue of increasing concern has been the methods used to project facility needs throughout the County. Standardized methods should be developed for such things as population projections. This issue was addressed to some degree in the recent management study which recommended: Increased attention needs to be given to the capital improvement planning process. Adequately justified and documented written proposals should be required. Careful analysis should be performed on the requests taking into account countywide concerns, costs, benefits, and trade-offs. A realistic plan that can be funded politically should be developed. In addition, the Capital Programs Subcommittee of the Planning Commission should be provided with sufficient information on projected revenue to recommend prioritization of projects based on need and revenue availability. Some kind of a revolving capital improvements fund,.with appropriations every year, should be established. This could help level out year- to-year demands. It could be established with seed money from a bond issue. (See attached Article on Managing Capital Improvements) INTERCHANGE PLANNING An issue which was raised at this years Planning Commission Retreat was that of planning for key economic development sites at existing and proposed interchange areas. One effort that staff will be undertaking in the very near future is to map rail corridors and pinpoint possible areas of economic development. As the Rt. 37 project progresses interchange areas along existing arterials will become apparent and plans should be developed accordingly. R-4 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE Certain minor amendments dealing with flexibility in dimensional requirements and buffers and screening requirements have been proposed by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee. This proposal will be discussed at the February 3rd Planning Commission meeting. The idea that development proposals for parcels (or groups of parcels) which exceed a certain acreage should be done under the R-4 regulations, as opposed to the RP regulations, has been proposed. This and other possible changes need to be discussed. STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ur nation's urban infrastructure is in distress. Traditional sources of public revenue are eroding and public spending for capital improvements have been drasti- cally curtailed. Much of the investment that is taking place is being channeled into new construction beyond the urban core. Yet, even in the more prosperous suburban fringe, growth continues to outpace avail- able sources of financing. Reporting on the state of our capital facilities, the National Council of Public Works Improvement con- cluded: America's infrastructure is barely adequate to fulfill current requirements, and insufficient to meet the demands of future economic growth. " 1 The need for better ways to manage capital improvements has never been greater. The prospects seem grim, especially with an economic recession further strain- ing local budgets and heightening public opposition to taxation and government lpending. The need for better ways to man- ge capital improvements has never been greater. Yet, with the recession has also come a respite from the rapid pace of de- velopment experienced in the late 1980's, and a corresponding opportunity to reas- sess local infrastructure needs and plan for the future. This article presents a strategic `apy proach for managing infrastructure impacts in growing communities, based on the com- prehensive report Infrastructure Manage- ment Options to Deal with the Impacts of Growth, published by the Intergovernmen- tal Growth Management Consortium n'May 1991. The Consortium includes Indepen- dence Township, Waterford Township, Oakland Township, Rochester Hills and West Bloomfield Township in Oakland County, Meridian Township in Ingham County, and Leelanau County. The foundation of this approach is a method of assessing and gauging infra- structure needs, called level of service (LOS) standards." Strategies address how to mobilize public resources, increase sup- plythrough capital improvements program- ming, and reduce demand through more effective management of existing facili- ties.The approach is comprehensive and includes road networks, utilities, police and ire facilities, stormwater management, schools and any other public service with a physical infrastructure component. by Kristine M. Williams, AICP The LOS Approach The level of service approach is a man- agement tool for guiding growth withiri.the" constraints of local infrastructure systems. It provides a method for systematically measuring service deficiencies, setting ser- vice goals, and monitoring progress. The approach relies on one of two different types of measures—LOS classifications and LOS standards. These measures de- fine the quality of the community's public services and provide a benchmark for the level of service a community can realisti- cally provide and maintain. A level of service classification system describes where a system stands on a graduated scale—for example, from "LOS A" (most preferred) to "LOS F" (least de- sired). This system is commonly applied to roadway segments. Each segment of the roadway or utility is classified according to current demand and capacity. If the level of service is below average—or LOS C—then the community may want to employ mea- sures to improve service. The LOS approach is a management tool for guiding growth within the constraints of local infrastructure systems. Level of service standards establish the benchmark for the level of facility operation acceptable to the community. For evalua- tion purposes, the term level of service refers to the capacity per unit of demand for a public facility. For example, the number of gallons of potable water required per capita per day for average and peak conditions is a baseline for determining current water needs. If water service falls below this stan- dard, then the community will experience a water shortage until water supply and/or delivery can be enhanced. The LOS approach is based on the con- cept of "carrying capacity." Together, the classification scheme and standards guide local capital improvement programming and ultimately direct land use planning and development decisions. Capital improve- ments are targeted to address service defi- ciencies. Development review identifies the impact a project will have on area facilities and whether that impact Ialis withlr ahe desired level of service or capacity of each system, given scheduled improvements. For this to occur, LOS standards must be officially adopted and integrated into local planning, regulation, and capital improve- ments programs. In Florida—where LOS standards are a required component of the local planning and regulatory system—concurrency re- quirements coordinate development review with level of service standards (see Con- currency, PZN, March 1991). Concurrency, requires that the level of service for each', infrastructure component is adequate at the time the new development is "open forbusi-: ness:" If it is not, then the developer has the option to provide the necessary im- provements, wait until the system has been improved, scale down the project, orfind an alternative location. A comprehensive example of LOS stan- dards as a growth management tool is San- ibel Island, Florida's hurricane evacuation standard for the narrow two-lane causeway connecting the island to the mainland. The evacuation capacity of the causeway was estimated at 650 vehicles per hour. This standard, when measured against house- hold size, existing dwelling units, and the average number of hours available for evacuation, provided a measure for deter- mining the maximum number of new dwell- ing units possible to maintain a reasonable level of evacuation service. This residential growth was then channeled into areas with sufficient service capacity, within the con- straints of a comprehensive environmental protection program. The Inventory A thorough assessment of existing ser- vice capacity and needs provides the basis for LOS determinations. It is also the essen- tial first step of any infrastructure planning program. The inventory should docum9,T the location, capacity, condition, and like. useful life of each facility that means for each road or utility segment, treatment plant, fire station, water to,Jver, etc. Stan- dardized inventory forms and accurate mapping capabilities are necessary so the information may be readily updated, ana- lyzed, and compared across the various subareas of a public service system. Few Michigan communities have an adequate understanding of the status of their public infrastructure. A computerized geographic information system (GIS) is the most efficient and effec- tive approach to mapping. A GIS tran- scends traditional drafting techniques by Planning & Zoning NewsO/February 1992 5 enabling easy revision, synthesis, and overlay of information (i.e., areas with ex- cess or inadequate capacity). Computer software is available for this purpose. Many consulting firms and communities—includ- ing West Bloomfield Township and Leelanau County—already have GIS ca- pacity. In nonmetropolitan areas, GIS may be most appropriate at the county level. Another component of the inventory is a summary of operating costs and the distri- bution of expenditures "`for"each `'sy§tern.` The current administrative structure, budg- etary needs (including staff, equipment, debt service, overhead, rental fees, etc.), and the relative share of local funds the system receives should all be documented. Analyses of this data would focus on the degree to which operating revenues can be increased or operating costs reduced to free up funds for priority service needs. Methods to consider could include user fees, administrative reorganization, and re- duction of low priority or redundant ser- vices. Results of the inventory should be stored in a computerized data base for easy re- Although the process sounds compli- trieval and analysis. This also allows infor- cated, once the inventory is complete it is mation to be periodically updated based on relatively straightforward (except, perhaps, new development and capital improve- for transportation). An adopted level of ser- ments or the results of other impact reduc- vice standard might look something like tion measures. See PZN, February 1988 for this: recreation -1 ball diamond per 2,400 an example of a `user friendly" computer- persons; water -140 average gallons of ized infrastructure management system. potable water per capita per day; and so on. Standards like this are familiar in planning practice, but seldom have they been inex- tricably tied to capital improvement pro- gramming and growth management efforts, as this approach requires. A preliminary determination of the finan- cial feasibility of desired LOS standards is advisable. This can be estimated using data on cost per unit of capacity'and' avail-> able revenues.3 A service deficiency (based on the desired level of. service) would be' translated into units of capacity and multiplied by the cost of each unit: This _ cost is then subtracted from existing reve- nues for a preliminary estimate of the_finan- cial burden the community must assume. This quick and easy test identifies whether desired LOS standards are indeed realistic, given a community's financial obligations. If service improvements are essential, but well beyond the financial capacity of the community, then broader policy solutions may be necessary. Once an overall LOS has been defined for each facility, it is equally crucial to iden- tify varying levels of service within a sys- tem. A storm sewer system which has suf- ficient capacity, given demand on a system- wide basis, may pose subsystem inade- quacies. Consider, for example, the neigh- borhood which experiences frequent flood- ing due to undersized storm sewers, while the rest of the community remains well drained. Demand management techniques and LOS issues to consider vary considerably framed within population and development projections. Public expectations, however, should be identified through a two -phased process. Citizens should first be informed how their tax dollars are allocated, where each facility stands in terms of service and cost, and how this will change if current trends continue. Next, a community opinion survey or series of town meetings will help define and refine expectations and priori- ties. Citizens in one community, for exam- ple, might prefer improvements to an active park over expansion of a roadway. These attitudes should be understood when set- ting capital improvement priorities. Service goals should be framed within the limitations of where the service stands today and what the community can afford to provide in the future. Determining Levels of Service Once the inventory is complete, the next step is to identify the level of service each facility currently provides and what service level the community desires. The .current level of service is an objective account of a facility's capacity to perform. It is based on a range of conditions and is ultimately com pared with preferred LOS to identify service deficiencies." Current level of service is an objective account of a facility's capacity to perform. The preferred LOS is defined within the context of public expectations, the level of existing deficiencies, demand trends, and financial feasibility. Any identification of ser- vice goals should be framed within the lim- itations of where the service stands today and what the community can realistically afford to provide in the future. At an abso- lute minimum, the preferred level of service should correspond with applicable federal, state, and county regulations. Because communities vary considerably in terms of their service capacity, desires, and needs, these standards often vary from one com- munity to another. The inventory 4ill identify existihd*fF . ciencies, and demand trends can be depending on the facility. Some of these issues are summarized below for fourmajor public service systems—transportation, stormwater management, water, and sani- tary sewers. Transportation Service Transportation is perhaps the most am- biguous system to define and manage. Un- like sewer and water utilities, where de- mand and capacity have well defined limits. transportation is an open system which de- fies easy measurement. Here the issue is not whether the system could accommo- date new users, but, rather, what is an acceptable level of traffic congestion? Another challenge is defining the service area of a transportation system. Limiting this evaluation to road segments or inter- sections may also limit perceived solutions to that area when in fact a system -wide solution may be preferable. One recom- mended approach is to define transporta- tion facilities on a corridor or system -wide basis, or within the context of a long range transportation plan (see Concurrency, PZN, March 1991). Average travel speed is the primary indicator of LOS for arterial roads. Average travel speed is the primary indi- cator of LOS for arterial roads. Within this context, the Transportation Research' Board has prepared the following general level of service designations for major arte- rials:4 LOS A: primarily free-flow operation at average travel speeds (900,0 of free flow speed for arterial class). Delays at signal- ized intersections are minimal. LOS B: reasonably unimpeded opera- tion at average travel speeds (about 70% of free flow traffic speed for arterial class). Maneuverability only slightly restricted and stopped delays are tolerable. LOS C: stable operations, but maneu- verability somewhat restricted in mid -block locations. Longer queues or adverse signal coordination may contribute to lower aver- age travel speeds (about 500% of free flow traffic speed for arterial class). Motorists." experience appreciable tension. LOS D: small increases in flow may cause substantial delays (about 40% of free flow traffic speed). High volumes, adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, or some combination are likely. LOS E: significant delays and average travel speeds are one-third of the free flow speed or lower. Usually characterized by some combination of adverse progression, high signal density, extensive queuing at major intersections, and inappropriate sig- nal timing. Planning & Zoning NewsO/February 1992 LOS F: average travel speeds less than one-third to one-quarter of free flow speed. Major intersections congested, with high approach delays. Adverse progression fre- quently contributes to this condition. . Because the level of service on arterial ,I ,oads may vary considerably throughout the day, some communities set their official LOS for peak hour traffic. Mason County, Florida, for example, has set its level of service standard for arterials, collectors, and limited access roadways at LOS G during peak hour traffic. Applying the LOS classification to road- ways requires a carrying capacity. analysis. Determining the carrying capacity of a road- way is complex and best undertaken by a transportation engineer. Hillsborough County, Florida, which houses the City of Tampa, uses a "capacity per lane"stan da rd of 7500 vehicles per day at LOS D for 2, 4, and 6 lane collector and arterial roads in its unincorporated areas.5 Capacity per lane standards can be applied to trip generation rates of existing and proposed develop- ment, minus scheduled capital improve- ments, to determine currently available ca- pacity. Volume-to-capacity ratios are then updated as new development and capital improvements take place. Alternative build- out scenarios can also be prepared to de- termine the ultimate capacity of the desired transportation system, thereby providing a framework for decisions regarding land use density and intensity. aa; Nater, Drainage, and Sewer Service later, sewer, and drainage systems have not received the extensive level of service analysis of transportation systems, and engineers differ over what is an appro- priate classification scheme. James A. Dietrick, Engineer, City of Rochester Hills suggests that water supply systems, sani- tation, and drainage could apply an LOS defined in terms of acceptable," "toler- able, "or "unacceptable."6 More finely grad- uated LOS designations may, however, fa- cilitate a better understanding of system strengths and deficiencies (see Infrastruc- ture Management Options for some pro- posed LOS classification schemes). In Flor- ida, simple LOS standards are used to de- te7,ine appropriate capacity (see Table 1) Currently accepted LOS standards for drainage focus on storm intensity and the resulting runoff volume. The present rule of thumb in many Michigan communities is to base drainage infrastructure improvements on a 10-year storm intensity. Florida com- munities typically employ the standard ad- vocated by the Florida Department of Transportation for a 25-year storm fre- quency. The actual standard employed may be different for new and old segments f a system and should be established ased on engineering advice and prevent- ing public health and safety problems. Planninm 9 7nni , , Alo„ c(nl/CoF .,, anal+ Stormwater management, however, goes beyond minimizing flood conditions to address the quality of runoff discharged into the watershed system. An adequate LOS scheme would address these issues in the context of two levels of stormwater man- agement: a) physical infrastructure and treatment facilities (i.e., inlets, storm pipes, storm drains, settling ponds, etc.); and b) provision of adequate open space and proper siting of structures to minimize flood- ing. Recent amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act will eventually require communities to prepare comprehensive stormwater management plans and meet minimum water quality discharge stan- dards fora discharge permit. Water systems operation depend on five principal issues: 1) the water source; 2) water treatment; 3) storage capacity; 4) the infrastructure network; and 5) the system's pressure, Each of these elements has a bearing upon the system's LOS. Engineer- ing standards provide general rules of thumb for the infrastructure elements, in- cluding pipe sizing and pressure, that can be used to establish local LOS standards for water supply. The ultimate goal of the system is to provide water in sufficient quantity, ata sufficient rate, and of sufficient quality to meet all needs of all systems users all of the time. Alternatively, the sys- tem should never fall below the average daily needs of area users. The principal issues that dictate a sani- tary sewer LOS are: 1) delivery of sewage from system users to the tr -,..ant facility; 2) the rate of treatment; and 3) the ade- quacy of treatment and resulting quality of effluent being discharged into the water. Three levels of treatment processes have been established—primary. secondary. and tertiary. Tertiary treatment provides the maximum level of treatment and adds ad- ditional measures to address standard or- ganic pollutants and certain synthetic com- pounds. The Clean Water Act of 1972 set mini- mum discharge quality requirements and required that nearly all municipal wastes receive at least secondary treatment. Today, communities must provide an ade- quate LOS to avoid the mandatory devel- opment moratoriums if a sanitary sewer system falls below the effluent discharge requirements. Yet despite these broad measures, state and local statutes also im- pact sewer service requirements, making a uniform LOS classification scheme critical. Reducing Demand A broad array of alternatives are avail- able for reducing facility demand, many at minimal cost to the community. A central consideration is whether the desired mea- sure will be acceptable to the target popu- lation, given values and lifestyle expecta- tions. Measures that involve considerable change in behavior will be ineffective with- out substantial incentives for change. Com- munities should also be willing to identify and revise regulatory measures that exac- erbate demand—an often politically unsa- vory process. Progressive efforts to strategically address system deficiencies will also ultimately be viewed far more positively than allowing continued deterioration or public infrastructure and a corresponding reduction in economic stability. Conservation measures are often effec- tive for reducing water and sewer demand. These might include education and regula- tory requirements aimed at reducing con- sumption (Le,, water flow restrictors on Table 1: Sample LOS Standards In Florida, where LOS standards are required by law to be created in every community, simple LOS standards are used to determine the availability of utility facilities capacity. For example, the following standards are used in the City of Miami Beach: Facility Level of Service Standard Sanitary Sewer Sewage generation standard = 103 average gal- lons per capita per day, 144 peak gallons per capita per day Storm Drainage Design storm standard = 25 -year frequency, 24- hour duration; rainfall intensity curve -zone 10, FDOT Drainage Manual 1987 Public Water Water consumption rate = 140 average gallons per capita per day, 168 peak gallons per capita perday showers and toilets, and watering restric- tions). Another possibility is limiting the ser- vice area—within the constraints of land use density and other planning considera- tions. This latter approach could be com- bined with limits on system extension until development trends and growth manage- ment policies support expansion (see "Urban Service Areas."PZN, Sept. 1990). Down zoning may be considered if exist- ing development trends threaten to outrun service capacity. Moratoriums on service extension should be considered only given a substantial threat to public health and safety, and only on a temporary basis until solutions can be implemented. Stormwater management measures range from construction to policy -based ini- tiatives.7 One obvious way to reduce runoff is to reduce the amount of impervious sur- faces. This can be accomplished by lower- ing parking requirements and conservative limits on lot coverage. On-site or multi -site detention basins may be required through zoning and development review. Preserva- tion of natural watercourses and increased use of natural drainage ways is another alternative. Transportation demand measures focus on changing commuter patterns rather than expanding the roadway network.$ Many of these techniques address existing traffic flow (i.e., better traffic signal timing, one- way streets, reversible traffic lanes, ride sharing, flex time for employees of major businesses, etc.). A more comprehensive measure involves land use management aimed at reducing cross commutes. This involves integrating land uses in a service area to provide for daily needs (i.e. live, shop, work, and play). A more recent ap- proach is to require trip reduction measures as a prerequisite fordevelopment approval. Preparing a Strategic Action Plan The infrastructure analysis may result in some startling conclusions. The community may find that it is unable to handle mainte- nance obligations, let alone address sys- tem deficiencies. Revenue and demand trends may portend continued fiscal dis- tress. Available capacity may be less than expected for certain systems, whereas other systems may have far more capacity than anticipated. Communities may be overwhelmed by the deluge of problems they are now obli- gated to address. Indeed, this may be why many communities continue to address in- frastructure needs on an ad hoc basis. Yet, verifying the gravity of these problems may lead to a more sympathetic public and pri- vate sector reaction to identified solutions. Progressive efforts to strategically address system deficiencies will also ultimately be viewed far more positively than allowing continued deterioration of public infrastruc- ture and a corresponding reduction in eco- nomic stability. The strategic planning process for miti- gating infrastructure impacts is summa- rized in Figure 1. Central to this process is the preparation of a capital improvements program and budget that prioritizes and targets major system deficiencies. Each project would be strategically oriented to- ward achieving the desired level of service. Setting priorities given the plethora of newly identified needs will require more than po- litical and budget considerations. The first step is to separate current needs that can only be solved by capital improvements from those which can be addressed through demand reduction measures. Strategic criteria for prioritizing capital improvements might include: • immediate health and safety issues; • the significance of constraints posed by the deficiency; • costs associated with correcting the problem; time required to carry out remedial mea- sures; • benefits, such as additional revenues, that might accrue from the improve- ment—including opportunities to shift costs to users; , • whether new expenditures would pro- tect existing infrastructure investments or extend the useful life of a facility (i.e., would a relatively small expenditure on repair or replacement prevent much larger expenditures later?); • interjurisdictional opportunities to share costs associated with facility expansion, especially where economies of scale are evident; and • opportunities to gain multiple benefits in the context of a comprehensive growth management program. The key political considerations will re- volve around avoiding blame and taking credit Political leaders should be at the forefront of the process and be able to take Figure 1 GENERAL PROCESS TO DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN TO MITIGATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS Community recognition of the need for a Strategic Action Plan to address failing infrastructure and/or public services. Community establishes a formal organization (such as a task force), or designates an existing body,' (such as a planning commission) to facilitate the preparation of the plan. 1 An inventoryof all capital facilities, services, and costs is prepared and identfies critical characteristics 1 including location and size of facilities, condition of facilities, and extent to which existing infrastruc- tures are under or over utilized (demand and capacity). 1 Based upon the inventory data collected and an analysis of this data, each infrastructure system, and each of its subcomponents, is rated according to the quality of service delivered by the existing system and such subcomponent. The extent and type of infrastructure needs are identified through comparison of existing levels (quality) of service and those levols desired by the community. Alternative options are reviewed to address the margin between existing and desired levels of service including infrastructure expansion and infrastructure demand reduction options. Priority actions are identified and embodied with 1) a capital improvement plan for infrastructure expansion and replacement projects, and 2) community education and regulation programs for demand management projects. The Strategic Action Plan is adopted, implemented, and periodically updated to recognize changing, conditions and trends. I Planning & Zoning News©/February 1992 credit for progressive action. A major bene- fit of strategic planning is that broad-based participation is required, permitting effec- tive education and building ownership in the outcome. If the infrastructure analysis does not involve public education and input, then identified system deficiencies will set polit- ical leaders up for considerable blame. Pri- orities set through this open process will also be more politically palatable. For each priority action, the plan must identify what will be done, who will do it, how much it will cost, and how it will be financed (not necessarily in that order). Contingen- cies should also be considered in the event that any of the underlying assumptions of the action plan are not accurate. Plans are often founded on overstated assumptions regarding revenue trends, new develop- ment, or the ability to reduce demand. To avoid this problem, alternative courses of action should be prepared based on the most likely scenarios a community will face. This will permit greater flexibility in imple- mentation, avoid unrealistic expectations, and, thereby, increase the chance of con- tinued support. The implementation effort could be bogged down by a variety of factors includ- ing organizational resistance, not clearly delegating administrative responsibilities, and not regularly informing stakeholders of the plan's progress. Periodic progress re- ports are essentialto maintaining continued support of the process. It is imperative that one individual be given responsibility for )overseeing implementation and monitoring efforts --especially if many agencies are involved. One way to overcome organizational re- sistance is to include agency or department heads in the planning process. If adminis- trative reorganization is required, staff should be informed of the purpose and objectives of such an action. Brief in-house training programs may help enhance coop- eration and enthusiasm while introducing staff to new procedures. Interjurisdictional Opportunities and Constraints Urban infrastructure typically does not end at municipal boundaries. Therefore, it is naive and incomplete to develop a reme- dial action plarr for these facilities without taking adjoining jurisdictions into account. Yet, this also dramatically complicates the task. Coordination is critical, and not all communities share the same priorities or desired level of service. With these constraints in mind, coordi- nating with other jurisdictions offers re- markable opportunities. A regional infra- structure plan can produce considerable benefits in terms of identifying needs, prior- itizing state and federal expenditure, and �ii.:.ost-efficient provision of capital improve - in ents.. Planning & Zoning News©/February 1992 Most regional infrastructure planning currently underway addresses special sub- areas, such as major transportation corri- dors, drainage districts, and sewage ser- vice areas. Growing townships could coor- dinate or jointly initiate corridor studies and improvements with the Count'/ Road Com- mission. Similarly, drainage and flooding programs should be coordinated with the County Drain Commission. Drain commis- sions have access to a variety of financing tools for drainage improvements, some of which may be brought to bear on a community's drainage problems. In metropolitan areas, corridor studies and transportation planning programs could be coordinated with the regional or metropolitan transportation planning entity. Another way to assure a regional emphasis on transportation planning is through a Transportation Management Association (TMA). TMA's have traditionally relied on demand management initiatives and em- phasize a close partnership between the community and the private sector in ad- dressing demand issues. Adjoining jurisdictions may be experi- encing similar problems. Coordinating planning efforts with adjacent communities may reveal deficiencies and solutions that would not be otherwise apparent. One op- tion that may be considered is consolidation of services where it is feasible and benefi- cial. A more ambitious approach is to coordi- nate facility planning and expansion or de- mand management with a comprehensive county -wide growth management plan. This process is being pursued in Oakland and Leelanau Counties. The challenge in Oakland County is to coordinate the infra- structure efforts of 61 different local govern- ments. Leelanau County is preparing a growth management plan for Leelanau peninsula which involves 16 jurisdictions. Coordinated efforts like these hold tremen- dous potential for successful implementa- tion if built on broad consensus, and will undoubtedly provide countless spin-off benefits. Concluding Considerations Local infrastructure planning is in idisar- ray. The politics of development, defined by inherent opposition to applied planning, stimulate and perpetuate the infrastructure crisis. Because public infrastructure pro- vides the framework for economic expan- sion and urban growth, the infrastructure crisis is contributing to the economic de- cline of our communities and our nation. In turn, the courts are establishing new limits on our ability to finance capital improve- ments, and the legislature has been pain- fully slow in authorizing new tools to ad- dress present statutory inadequacies. Much can still be done even on a basic level to improve how local infrastructure decisions are made. If nothing else, every community should conduct a complete in- ventory of its infrastructure. Few Michigan communities have an adequate under- standing of the status of their public infra- structure, and many small communities have yet to document the location of under- ground utilities. Public works decisions con- tinue to be made in a vacuum, guided more by changing political will than by priority service needs. If nothing else, every community should conduct a complete inventory of its infrastructure. We must prepare responsible plans and encourage informed participation. Without an adequate inventory and procedure for addressing deficiencies, infrastructure planning will continue to occur in a reactive mode with dire consequences for abroad spectrum of community. planning and growth management efforts. ❑ Footnotes 1. Urban Land, Development Trends 1989, Urban Land Institute, March 1989. p. 18. 2. Charles Siemon. "Carrving Cappacily Plan- ning: Rx for the Future?" in 8. Brumback and M. Marvin eds. Implementation of the 1985 Growth Management Act: From Planning to Land Development Regulations. Fort Lauder- dale: FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. Monograph Y89 1., 1989, P. 17. 3. Patricia S. McKay. 'Ca ital Improvements Programming in Florida, 'in Implementation of the 1985 Growth Management Act, op cit, p. 46. 4. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council; 1985, Highway Capacity Manual: Special Report 209, call 4TE1.N457, no. 209. 5. Hillsborough County Thoroughfare Plan Or- dinance. Department of Development Coordina- tion, 1987, as amended. 6. Mark Wyckoff and Mark Eidelson, Infra- structure Management Optons to Deal with the Impacts of Growth, Theintergovernmental Growth Management Consortium, Lansing: Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., May 1991, P. 2-5. 7. For more information on stormwater man- agement, see Stormwater Management Guidebook for Michigan Communities, by Lil- lian Dean and Peggy Johnson, Ut ca, MI: Clinton River Watershed Council, 1987. 8. For a complete discussion of transportation management techniques and case studies, see Transportation Management Througgh Part- nerships, Washington DC: Urban Landtnstitute, 1990. Infrastructure Management Options to Deal with the Impacts of Growth is available for $25 from the Planning & Zoning Center; Inc:, 3012 S. Waverly Rd., Lansing, MI 48917. The report was written by Mark A. Wyckoff, AICP and Mark Eidel- son, AICP for the Intergovernmental Growth Management Consortium and published in May 1991. It is 74 pages. O