Concentrating Growth

As I posted elsewhere….after viewing the joint work session of the BOS and PC this afternoon; I can honestly say that I still do not have a good feeling about these UDA’s.

On or about November 1, 2010, I sent the following message to the BOS.

(In 2007 the General Assembly passed HB 3202, the 2007 Transportation Act. There were three provisions related to land use in this legislation. 1) It created Urban Development Areas (UDA’s). 2) It broadened existing Transportation Impact Fees (TIF’s). 3) It established General Impact Fee authority linked to the creation of Urban Transportation Service Districts (UTSD’s).

As I recall, the BOS rejected UTSD’s and the General Impact Fee authority after reviewing the Tischler-Bise Study. Basically, I further recall, this rejection was based on the potential that “by-right” developers/landowners would have to pay impact fees for infrastructure needs brought about by their developments.

In the case of UTSD’s there was no legislative requirement to create a minimum number so there was no penalty for the County to reject same. The other side of that coin is that this action left the burden of at least “by-right” development infrastructure squarely on the tax payers backs.

I am unsure just where the BOS action left the “broadened existing Transportation Impact Fees.” However, that is not the purpose of this communication.

We have recently watched the BOS “debate,” perhaps “wrestle” would be a better description, these Urban Development Areas (UDA’s). In this case, the legislation requires that at least one UDA be created and reported by a date certain determined by locality growth goals selected by the BOS. There may also be a penalty provision involving repayment of the consultant fee grant for failure to report by the specified deadline.

In any event, it appears the BOS will create at least one UDA and likely two or three as per staff and consultant recommendations. There is also another side of this coin. These UDA’s carry certain rather restrictive infrastructure requirements that when considered in the light of the BOS’s UTSD/Impact Fee decision, may again leave the tax payer burdened with paying the infrastructure costs for developers.

That pretty much sums up the situation as the 10/26/2010 BOS meeting closed unless some action was taken in closed session of which I am not aware.

It is my view that the staff and the VDOT consultant is pushing the BOS very hard to pursue “Greenfield” UDA’s here. In addition, they seem to be pushing for some rapid decision. What is the hurry?

If time is of the essence here, it would seem wiser to declare the Primary Settlement District (PSD) as our UDA, as suggested by Messrs. Jackson and, I believe, Logan and entertain any developer proposals that employ higher density re-development using New Urbanism principles. This would seem to me to best preserve Planning Commission and BOS options while protecting the tax payers from unneeded liabilities for infrastructure costs.

Another alternative that would preserve options and protect tax payers would be to declare the Lafayette Blvd/Four Mile Fork Area as our UDA and again entertain any developer proposals that employ higher density re-development using New Urbanism principles.

I believe the staff/consultant recommendations to date are overly complicating this issue and will eventually lead to serious impacts on the tax payers of Spotsylvania.)

I received a reply from Mr. Pitts that included a Staff response to my message. In addition, I received a private communication from another member of the BOS thanking me for the input.

My thanks also to Ms. Umble for a fine report.

Mr. Pitts response does not ring true. Most of the UDA type development in NoVa and Richmond – the places where the planners are taking the BOS/PC on tours are not greenfield rural UDAs but instead re-development UDAs where there is already water/sewer, transit and JOBS.

There is also no mandatory expansion of the Primary Settlement area until the growth potential is reached and if they used 8DU as the threshold – as the state allows – then they have met the letter and spirit of the law – and several other counties like Henrico and Chesterfield have done exactly this as they have designated existing water/sewer served areas that are already served by transit – as their designated UDAs.

We had a proposal from Mr. Garrison for what amounts to a UDA along Lafayette Blvd and Mr. Pitss voted against it because he said it did not pay for itself.

If that is the same standard that Mr. Pitts is going to use for the UDAs then I applaud his principles because if you cannot develop a UDA that will pay for itself where water/sewer and road infrastructure already exists – there is no way you could meet that standard with greenfield UDAs that lack sufficient infrastructure.for the UDA mixed-use densities.

I’m not opposed to an intelligent, well-planned approach to UDA and I agree with Mr. Haas. What is the rush?

Do the letter of the law. designate ONE UDA in the primary settlement area and then start looking at other possible sites and every candidate site should be evaluated with respect to the infrastructure costs necessary to support it BEFORE it is designated.

All of these UDA-like develoments in NoVa and Richmond – are also backfitting walking/pedestrian facilities so why is that an obstacle down here but not up there?

I really don’t have a problem with the UDA concept. But I have concerns with the way they are being implemented, in part, because there are a lot of ramifications that need to be carefully considered not the least of which is that UDAs in exurban commuter-centric bedroom communities will not function the same way that UDAs function in more urbanized areas like NoVa and Richmond especially if the exurban UDAs are “greenfield” that lack the necessary infrastructure and facilities to support them.

Despite the fact that the county utility people said that the water/sewer situation was “ok” and “already planned” – in their own water/sewer master plan – they point out that the planned DENSITY of a prospective area – has a big impact on design.

It’s a simple thing. How big do the pipes need to be to transport …say TWICE as much for higher density development than lower.

The geography plays a big role because gravity-fed sewer has to essentially follow watersheds – that’s why you’ll often see the sewer lines running along creeks.

If the sewage treatment plant is not in the same watershed – pump stations must be built – and they must be sized according to the planned build-out capacity of the areas to be served.

So even if the utilities guys say they’ve got it “covered”, they owe an analysis of how UDAs will affect the designs and planning because ultimately – the taxpayers in the county get involved in the financing of new infrastructure even if it will be “paid back” when hook-ups are bought.

You can’t have a UDA without the water/sewer being AVAILABLE – BEFORE the construction is finished and people moving in.

Who fronts the money for this?

Usually you float a bond at a certain interest rate and just like any other loan – it goes for a number of years and payments have to be made and a lot depends on how much existing funds we already have from selling existing connections and in the economy of the last few years – my understanding is that we have not been selling near as many water/sewer connections as we thought we would be.

Because of this – you just cannot mark a spot on a map for a UDA.

The geography is important and how much density you have for that geography is important because the size of the pipes and pumps, etc will vary according to the geography.

Finally – when you designate higher densities somewhere – it means that the build-out scenario for the county will change because the capacity of the sewage treatment plant is essentially being reallocated.

To put this another way – We do not have unlimited sewage treatment capacity. It is finite and it will likely be either capped or get much more expensive as nutrient levels are reduced.

That means we only have so much capacity and if you increase density some where – then it ultimately might mean less availability – elsewhere than originally planned.

The are questions that the Utilities Dept should answer – comprehensively but the decisions are beyond their purview – although can and are abdicated if local officials don’t heed the numbers.

In other words – we got the process wrong.

You don’t designate UDAs FIRST and then try to figure out water/sewer.

You look at your water/sewer planning and capacity – from a county and a geographic perspective – and that knowledge should help you decide WHERE to put UDAs and how large and dense they can be – given the geography, and cost to put in bigger pipes, etc.

You just can’t put a push-pin on a map and then build water/sewer to it.

So – you might have an existing railroad and you might have 6 potential rail station locations but providing water/sewer to them – and the development around them will be different – depending on the geography and I did not see that information provided when the rail station locations were analyzed.

Not the rail station per se – but the water/sewer needs of the “small area” plan around the rail station.

Where is that data?

There ought to be a detailed water/sewer infrastructure plan for UDAs to reveal the extent and cost and just like roads – not all facilities cost the same. Some can be very expensive – because of the geography.

We should know the financial implications of various geographic sites a part of the decision process.

One of the simple questions that I feel needs to be answered is what would be the eventual build-out of the area around the VRE station and how much water/sewer should be planned for and what will it cost and finally how much of our available capacity will be used and how much left for other development in the county?