I 0 '
■
SUMMARY
3
ST. CHARLES COMMUNITIES
IMPACT EVALUATION STUOY^
THE TRI COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR SOUTHERN MARYLANO
CatMSULTANTS:
BAPTOM - ASCHMAM ASSOCIATES IMC.
ST. CHARLES COMMUNITIES
IMPACT EVALUATION STUOY
THE rni cauiMTY
FOn SOUTHERIM
COMSULTAMTS:
BARTOM -ASCHMAIM
August, 1975
COUNCIL
MARYLANO
ASSOCIATES IMC.
The research and publication of this report were made possible
through a research grant from the Office of Policy Development
and Research of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development under the provision of Section 701 (bj of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended, to the Tri-County Council for
Southern Maryland. The findings and conclusions presented in this
report do not necessarily represent official policy of the Depart¬
ment of Housing and Urban Development or the Tri-County
Council for Southern Maryland.
CONTENTS
List of Figures and Tables, v
1.
INTRODUCTION 1
2.
STUDY DIRECTIVES 3
3.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5
Directive 1—New Communities vs. Trend Development 5
Directive 2—Impact Evaluation Techniques 5
Directive 3—Application of Techniques 11
Directive 4—Development Options and Staging 12
Directive 5—Monitoring and Evaluating Growth 14
Directive 6—Evaluation Guidelines and Techniques 15
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures
1. St. Charles Communities impact Summary Matrix 13
2. Summary of Capital Programming Process 18
Tables
1. Summary of Comparative Growth Model Characteristics 6
2. Summary of Projected Annual Fiscal Impact of St. Charles Communities on
Charles County, Maryland 7
3. Goal Achievement Evaluation—New Community Versus Trend Development
Approach 8
4. Summary of Projected Annual Fiscal Impact of St. Charles Communities on the
State of Maryland 9
5. System Performance Indicators 10
V
1.
INTRODUCTION
The St. Charles Community Impact Evaluation Study was a research effort designed to
provide local, state, and federal officials with methods of measuring and monitoring the
impacts of New Communities on local government. Although the research was conducted
within the context of a New Community sponsored through Title VII of the Housing Act,
many of the findings, techniques, and impacts have potential application to other forms of
large-scale development.
The majority of New Communities which have been initiated throughout the United
States are located on the fringe of major metropolitan areas. Such locations offer distinct
advantages (over closer-in locations) to the developer of the New Community in that the
large land areas which are required for the new development can be assembled at
comparatively low prices; the necessary market support is provided by the major
metropolitan area within reasonable commuting distance; and the physical conditions in the
surrounding area can be shaped in a manner which allows the physical and environmental
objectives of the New Community to be met. Thus, the metropolitan fringe locations, which
are popular with the developers, present a unique set of opportunities for achieving the
objectives of New Community development.
However, the introduction of such large-scale development to a fringe area government
also presents a number of concerns and potential problems. The degree of uncertainty that
accompanies major changes in relatively stable settings may be rapidly translated into
specific concerns about the impacts of large-scale development on the community. Potential
problems to be faced by fringe area jurisdictions include:
- Fragmented governmental and private responsibilities for planning, financing, construc¬
tion, and operation of necessary public facilities and services.
- Lack of organization and staff resources to address initial concerns and to handle the
increased workloads associated with the implementation of large-scale developments.
- Lack of either methods or documented comparable experience for use in identifying the
types and extent of impacts to be expected.
- Strain on the capacity of existing public utilities, facilities, and service delivery systems.
- Adverse environmental impacts from development and population growth.
- Increased public expenditures for services and facilities without corresponding increases
in public revenues.
1
Because of the magnitude and scope of such potential problems, it is critically important
to planners, developers, and local officials to develop methods of measuring the impacts and
to develop effective mechanisms for the management of New Community and other
large-scale growth. The need for such methods has been recognized by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and others involved in New Community planning and
development through the preparation of the St. Charles Communities Impact Evaluation
Study. Presentation of impact analysis techniques, evaluation of the impact of a New
Community and other large-scale growth, and recommended implementation tools are
contained in three reports comprising the St. Charles Communities Impact Evaluation
Study:
1. Comparative Evaluation of New Community Growth Versus Trend Development Growth.
2. Impacts of a New Community on Charles County, Maryland.
3. Equilibrium Measures and Implementation Procedures.
The reports represent a progression from evaluation of alternative growth forms through
evaluation of a specific development to recommendations for managing development impact
and, therefore, each report can be read independently.
The purpose of this summary report is to present major findings from the three reports in
terms of the six directives which were established to guide the overall conduct of the impact
evaluation study. The following pages describe the study directives and present summaries
of related findings and conclusions.
2
2.
STUDY DIRECTIVES
The following directives were developed and applied to provide knowledge of the impacts
of a New Community to Charles County (Maryland), to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and to other government officials and developers concerned with the
impacts of large-scale development. The directives, formulated by the Tri-County Council
for Southern Maryland, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Board of
Commissioners of Charles County, the Maryland Department of Planning, and the
consultants are as follows:
1. Examine, using real data, the advantages and disadvantages for a rural county, located at
the fringe of urbanization, of accommodating new urban growth by means of New
Community strategy versus growth by scattered subdivisions.
2. Develop from largely existing techniques, methods for calculating the impacts of a New
Community on the county, region, and state in which it will be located.
3. Apply these methods and techniques to the St. Charles Communities with special
attention to questions of public revenue and cash flow requirements.
4. Define developmental options and staging which will reflect the public interest and enable
the development of the New Community to proceed in an effective and economical
manner.
5. Define a preliminary system for continuous monitoring and evaluating growth both
within and outside of the New Community project which will enable Charles County, the
region, and the state to anticipate and make adjustments to public service programming
and land-use controls as may be necessary to assure a desirable growth process.
6. Provide guidelines and techniques which will be useful in helping other counties in
evaluating New Communities and similar large-scale development, and which will
specifically assist Charles County, the Tri-County Council, and the State of Maryland in
accommodating St. Charles Communities.
The following section presents findings and conclusions as related to the six study
directives discussed above.
3
3.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Directive 1—New Communities vs. Trend Development
Stated in the context of Charles County (Maryland), the major conclusion from
examination of the advantages and disadvantages of accommodating growth by means of a
New Community strategy versus growth by scattered subdivisions is that the former strategy
offers substantially greater advantages and opportunities to fringe area counties.
It was also concluded that both the diverse interests involved and the wide variety of data
available provided the opportunity for application of several meaningful evaluation
techniques. Techniques applied for comparison of alternative county growth models in
response to this directive included goal achievement measurement, fiscal analysis, and
system performance standards evaluation.
Results from the application of these techniques to alternative growth models (New
Community Approach versus Trend Development Approach) are summarized in Table 1.
The characteristics of alternative approaches contained in Table 1 do not include all
comparisons made, but present elements judged to be of general interest and concern to
those involved in New Community or large-scale development processes.
Directive 2—Impact Evaluation Techniques
Development of methods for calculating the impacts of a New Community resulted in the
selection of three recommended impact evaluation techniques. The three techniques applied
in the St. Charles Communities Impact Evaluation Study are goal achievement evaluation,
fiscal impact analysis, and system performance standards evaluation. It was found that these
methods are responsive to needs for relating evaluation to existing stated policies, for
addressing numerous issues of local concern, and for using existing county and regional data
to the greatest extent possible. The following summaries discuss and illustrate the
application of the three methods used for the study.
- Goal Achievement Evaluation. One of the findings stemming from this evaluation was
that county goals had not been assembled in one document to permit analysis of their
comprehensiveness of coverage or internal compatibility. It was also found that processes
for measuring achievement had not been developed, nor had the use of goal achievement
5
Table 1
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE GROWTH MODEL CHARACTERISTICS
Evaluation
Criteria
The New Community Approach
The Trend Development Approach
Population
Characteristics
Employment
Characteristics
Convenience and
Amenity
Characteristics
Fiscal
Characteristics
Land Development
Impact
Characteristics
Education Facilities
Characteristics
Transportation
Characteristics
Sewerage System
Characteristics
Water Supply
Characteristics
Government Services
Characteristics
Community Organiza¬
tion
Characteristics
Growth Management
Characteristics
-- Encompasses a diverse (age, family size,
income) population reflecting metro¬
politan characteristics.
Stimulates creation of higher in-county
employment by virtue of increased manu¬
facturing job opportunities.
Provides an urban environment with limit¬
ed opportunities to live in low-density
residential environments.
Provides close proximity to shopping,
recreation, health, and education facil¬
ities for most of the new population.
Produces major fiscal benefits for the
county and long-term fiscal benefits
for the state.
Limits the amount of land developed and
the extent of county area directly im¬
pacted by new development.
Generates a smaller school age population,
higher tax base per pupil, and fewer
pupils with transportation requirements.
Results in a more efficient highway sys¬
tem with higher potential for intra-
community and intra-regional transit op¬
portunities.
Requires major investment in sewer col¬
lection and treatment facilities to
serve the majority of new dwelling units.
Results in majority of new dwel1ingsserved
by water system with increase in reliabil¬
ity of supply and higher total investment
in distribution and treatment facilities.
Assures more effective fire protection ser¬
vice at a higher public operating cost.
Provides a higher level of government ser¬
vices to both new and existing development
within service standard measures.
Creates neighborhoods and communities at
consistent scales for equitable provision
of public and private services.
Provides for predictability of growth lo¬
cation and form with higher degree of
planning and environmental control; fixed
development framework and pace for major¬
ity of new development.
Encompasses a homogeneous population close¬
ly reflecting recent growth trends in
Charles County.
Results in fewer manufacturing plants with
associated lower employment and higher
out-commutation.
Provides a suburban environment with op¬
portunities for low-density (semi-
rural ) environments.
Provides close proximity to community fac¬
ilities for a small portion of new
population.
Produces moderate fiscal benefit to the
county and negative fiscal impacts on the
state.
Involves extensive land development
throughout major portions of the county.
Generates a larger school age population
with attendant higher total capital and
operating expenditures.
Creates the need for a more extensive
highway network involving higher con¬
struction and maintenance costs', pro¬
duces fewer high-density traffic zones
with adverse air pollution potential.
Requires smaller investment in sewer fac¬
ilities with resulting increase indepen¬
dence on individual ground disposal and
attendant health hazards.
Results in fewer dwellings served by
water systems with smaller investment
in system facilities; greater dependence
on individual wells and higher fire in¬
surance premiums in unserved areas.
Involves a greater number of volunteer
fire companies, personnel, and new sta¬
tions for standard protection coverage.
Provides lower levels of government ser¬
vices to existing and new development
within service standard measures.
Creates a variety of neighborhoods de¬
veloped at different population and
geographic scales with attendant varia¬
tions in kinds and levels of service.
Allows greater ability to stall or post¬
pone incremental development with absence
of single large development commitment.
6
measures been formally institutionalized in the county decision-making process.
Therefore, the consultant compiled stated goals at the county and regional levels from a
variety of adopted planning documents, classified goals into basic categories, and
developed statements of objectives and measurement criteria. The goals/objectives/criteria
resulting from this process were then applied to alternate growth models representing a
New Community approach and a Trend Development approach. The product provided an
example of goal achievement evaluation which could be used by the county in its
decision-making framework. It was concluded from this analysis that the New
Community approach achieved higher satisfaction of stated goals than the Trend
Development approach. Table 3 presents a sample summary of the findings made during
this process. The qualitative achievement judgments incorporated the use of indicators
developed for the fiscal analysis and system performance evaluations.
Fiscal impact Analysis. Fiscal analysis was emphasized as an evaluation tool in response
to local concerns and to availability of a variety of state and county data assembled by
the regional planning agency. It was found that the Tri-County Council had collected
extensive amounts of fiscal data and established a variety of indicators to present
year-to-year fiscal trends in the region. It was necessary to develop fiscal impact analysis
methods which could be used to evaluate and monitor the impact of specific development
proposals such as St. Charles Communities. Existing fiscal analysis techniques were
modified and refined to permit such evaluation at both county and state levels of detail.
Table 2 summarizes the projected fiscal impact of St. Charles Communities on Charles
County over the 20-year development span anticipated for the New Community.
Table 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT OF ST. CHARLES COMMUNITIES ON
CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND
Development Year
Fiscal Indicators
1st
5th
10th
15th
20th
Expenditures
School Operations
$
200,000
$1,256,000
$3,430,000
$ 6,143,000
$ 9,005,000
General Fund, Health,
Social, Safety
208,000
851,000
2,137,000
4,402,000
6,518,000
Capital Costs
42,000
98,000
315,000
396,000
463,000
Total Expenditures: $
450,000
$2,205,000
$5,882,000
$10,941,000
$15,986,000
Revenues
Property Tax
$
868,000
$2,449,000
$5,374,000
$ 8,495,000
$11,921,000
Income Tax Surcharge
53,000
389,000
608,000
1,112,000
1,595,000
Minor Funds
75,000
484,000
1,380,000
2,489,000
3,685,000
Revenue Sharing
26,000
1 72,000
490,000
884,000
1,309,000
Total Revenues: $1,022,000
$3,494,000
$7,852,000
$12,980,000
$18,510,000
Annual Surplus
$
572,000
$1,289,000
$1,970,000
$ 2,039,000
$ 2,524,000
7
Table 3
GOAL ACHIEVEMENT EVALUATION—NEW COMMUNITY VERSUS TREND DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
Goals and
Objectives
Criteria
New Conimunity Model
Trend Development Model
Insure quality of new
residential develop¬
ment.
Maintain high
standards for
developments;
avoid curbing
competition
Provide a variety of
residential densities
and housing types.
Encourage
planned de¬
velopments,
permit
variety of
housing
types.
Insure availability
of housing for dif¬
ferent socioeconomic
groups.
Support de¬
velopment
applications
providing
range of
housing costs.
Level of Amenities
Development Standards
Diversity of Builders
Amount of housing in
Planned Unit Devel-
opment
Types of Housing Per¬
mitted
Average Cost of
Dwelling Units
Distribution of
Housing by Income
Levels
Formal commitment to provide sub¬
stantial open space, recreation
facilities. Commitment to conscious¬
ly plan and integrate basic commun¬
ity facilities and services at neigh¬
borhood and other scales.
New communities of large size are
subject to federal and state as well
as local development standards which
reflect broader concerns for quality
of development than are generally in¬
corporated in local codes. The large
"package" approvals required at the
local level help insure uniform ap-
lication of standards and provide
local agencies with leverage to force
higher standards in some areas.
Although large operations are subject
to dangers of monopoly and cost-
cutting, the necessities of large-
scale marketing of housing dictate ad¬
herence to standards of quality to
establish and maintain the project's
image. In the case of St. Charles Com¬
munities, development is being under¬
taken by a number of independent build¬
ers which fosters competition.
The New Coritiunity will take up a large
share of the local market, if it is
successful. Some of the competing de¬
velopments will have to achieve
larger, i.e., PUD scales to match
amenities and efficiencies of the
New Community.
The New Community under present ap¬
provals provides a full range of
housing types.
New Community provides substan¬
tially more small housing units
as well as subsidized housing for
low-income families. Land is used
more intensively. Expenses for
financing and amenities mitigates
the effects of these factors to
some degree. The average dwelling
cost is computed to be $22,500.
Number of Units
Low Income 6,060
Moderate Income 20,420
Medium-high Income 9,400
Limited size and scale of many
individual projects inhibits
provision of open space and
other facilities. Spread and
scatteration of development
limits provision of amenities
at neighborhood scales.
Many small to medium scale trend
developments are subject only to
local standards and such stan¬
dards are usually applied "by
the book." Scatteration of de-
velopment--in space and time-
works against uniform standards.
A large number of builders is
characteristic of Trend Devel¬
opment and the associated com¬
petition favors improvement of
quality.
As growth pressures increase
and the popularity of PUDs
grows, an increasing larger
share of Trend Development
will be built in PUDs. Present
policies, however, limit this
and the transformation is like¬
ly to be sporadic.
Regulations of Trend Develop¬
ment currently limit the
types of houses which can be
developed-'particularly single-
family attached units.
Trend Development tends toward
emphasis on provision of hous¬
ing for middle-and upper-income
families. Land is used more
extensively and per unit land
costs tend to be higher. The
average dwelling cost is com¬
puted as $28,600.
Number of Units
Low Income 3,300
Moderate Income 16,530
Medium-high Income 13,230
8
Due to major fiscal responsibilities assumed by the State of Maryland (which may
contribute to insulation of the county from adverse fiscal impacts), fiscal analysis of
impact on state revenues and expenditures was also conducted. Table 4 summarizes
revenues to the state and expenditures by the state assigned to St. Charles Communities.
Table 4
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT OF ST. CHARLES COMMUNITIES ON THE
STATE OF MARYLAND
Development Year
Fiscal Indicators
1st
5th
10th
15th
20th
Expenditures
Education Operations
$198,000
$1,236,000
$3,379,000
$ 6,054,000
$ 8,877,000
General Fund, Health,
Social
76,000
490,000
1,441,000
2,619,000
3,884,000
Other Operations
13,000
74,000
192,000
328,000
473,000
Total Capital Costs
91,000
826.000
2,681,000
4,678,000
5,428,000
Total Expenditures: $378,000
$2,626,000
$7,693,000
$13,679,000
$18,662,000
Revenues
Property Tax
$ 75,000
$ 166,000
$ 365,000
$ 576,000
$ 808,000
Income Tax
107,000
577,000
1,336,000
2,223,000
3,191,000
Sales Tax
85,000
51 7,000
1,372,000
2,400,000
3,513,000
Other Revenues
350,000
2,198,000
6,159,000
11,001,000
18.188,000
Total Revenues: $617,000
$3,458,000
$9,232,000
$16,200,000
$25,700,000
Annual Surplus
$239,000
$ 832,000
$1,539,000
$ 2,521,000
$ 7,038,000
System Performance Standards. Quantitative methods for evaluating the impact of a New
Community or other large-scale development can be applied to a wide variety of elements
within the built environment. Analysis of the impact of a New Community, in this
context, can be performed by quantifying such elements and making comparisons with
similar quantities for other forms of new development or existing development. The
method adopted for this study involved quantification of a large series of indicators
which are grouped to measure efficiencies, costs, accessibility factors, multipurpose
opportunities, and absolute quantities of a New Community growth model and a Trend
Development growth model. In this manner a measure of the performance of a New
Community or other large-scale development can be obtained by applying planning and
public service standards to programmed or projected development. Table 5 illustrates the
use of selected system performance measures to evaluate the impact of development. The
study concluded, based on the application of several hundred performance indicators,
that impact of the New Community model growth offered substantial advantages to the
alternative Trend Development growth model examined. The format and content of
Table 5 illustrate the capabilities to identify trade-offs as well as the positive and negative
impacts associated with alternative growth forms.
9
Table 5
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Quantities
Functional System
Measure/Indicator
Trend
Development
Model
New
Community
Model
Differences^^ ^
Housing
2,819(NC)
Number of Units
33,068
35,887
Range of Density(Dwellings/Acre)
1-15
1-60
- (NC)
Dwellings/Acre (Gross
1.5
4.9
3.2(NC)
Mix of Housing Costs (Number of Units)
2.754(NC)
Low Income
3,307
6,061
Moderate Income
16,534
20,418
3,884(NC)
Middle-high Income
13,227
9,408
3,819(NC)
Education
3,470(TR)
Number of Pupils (Net New)
19,930
16,460
Standard School Sizes--Number Required
38
32
6(TR)
Number of Pupils Walking
4,300
17,400
13,100(NC)
Construction Costs ($ Millions)
$92.8
$77.9
$14.9(TR)
Multipurpose Opportunity Population
150,400(NC)
Accessibility to Schools
46,900
197,300
Transportation
273 Mi.(TR)
Miles of New Road Required
521 Mi.
248 Mi.
Local Roads
414 Mi.
160 Mi.
254 Mi.(TR)
Arterial/Expressway
107
88
19(TR)
Transit
Interurban-feasibi1ity Population/
965/Sq.Mi.(NC)
Density Zone 1
476/Sq.Mi.
1,441/Sq.Mi.
Environmental Factors
14,670(TR)
Acreas of Land Consumed
26,070
11,400
Daily Vehicle-Miles Contributing to
947,500(TR)
Air Pollution
4,224,000
3,276,500
Number of New DUs Utilizing
6,700(TR)
Septic Systems
7,700
1 ,000
Water Supply and Distribution
21 L.F.(TR)
Lineal Feet per Dwelling Served
48 L.F.
27 L.F.
Percent of Dwellings Served
80%
97%
17%(NC)
Sewage Collection and Treatment
7 L.F.(TR)
Lineal Feet per Dwelling Served
34 L.F.
27 L.F.
Percent of Dwellings Served
77%
97%
20%(NC)
Fire and Rescue Service
Total Population Within Three Miles of
Regular(Paid)Service
124,000
137,000
13,000(NC)
Dwellings Served by Water Lines
26,000
34,500
8,500(NC)
given is highest under the Trend or New Community model
lumn indicate whether the quantity
10
Directive 3—Application of Techniques
Findings and conclusions with regard to application of impact evaluation techniques to
St. Charles Communities are partially summarized in Tables 1 through 5. The overall
positive impact conclusions are explained in somewhat more detail in the following
statements;
Impacts on Charles County
- The New Community is projected to create a surplus of revenues over expenditures for
each year of the 20-year development program.
-- While actual revenue and expenditure amounts cannot be predicted with great certainty,
the projected surplus levels appear large enough to withstand effects of underestimating
expenditures or overestimating revenues which might result from changes in the
development program or increases in expenditure levels.
-- A significant factor in the favorable fiscal impact upon the county is the major state
responsibility for growth-related expenditures as exemplified in 100 percent funding for
school construction and approximately 30 percent funding for school operations.
- A closely related impact of the New Community not specifically addressed in the fiscal
analysis involves developer contributions. The estimated value of major developer
contributions (land, cash, facilities, operations) is $5.7 million; for secondary contribu¬
tions it is an estimated $12 million.
Development of St. Charles Communities (as programmed in the approved Project
Agreement) will be the major force in shaping the future of Charles County for 20 years.
The New Community can, under these conditions, represent 60 percent to 70 percent of
new population, housing, and employment growth experienced during this time.
- Evaluation of the St. Charles Communities Development Plan pointed to the major
challenges of improving upon preceding development and of creating strong visual effects
within a relatively bland setting. Particular attention was given to the concern for
diversifying the focus of the New Community by including La Plata (county seat) as well
as the existing Waldorf activity center in the physical design orientation. The creation of
balance between major activity centers and the New Community is a recommended
policy guideline affecting peripheral development and capital improvement decisions.
Impacts on the State of Maryland
- The New Community is projected to create a surplus of revenues over expenditures for
each year of the 20-year development program. As in the case of county fiscal projections
cited above, surplus levels appear to be large enough to withstand significant changes in
component cost and revenue figures.
- The magnitude of positive fiscal impact projected for the state cannot be construed as a
corresponding change in the overall fiscal budget balances of the state; projected fiscal
levels reflect the impact of the New Community taken as an isolated entity. Although not
11
specifically quantified in the study, lesser positive impacts on the state are expected as a
function of developer contributions, efficiency of the highway system, and efficiency of
other public service/facility components partially funded by the state.
Impact Comparison Summary
An extensive series of potential impacts of the New Community on the socioeconomic,
physical/environmental, and government/institutional structures of the county were
evaluated. The evaluation compares positive impacts cited in the Project Agreement of St.
Charles Communities with those expected for other New Communities as well as other
forms of development. Figure 1 summarizes the comparisons.
Directive 4—Development Options and Staging
Findings and conclusions with respect to the directive to define developmental options
and staging which would reflect the public interest and enable the development of the New
Community to proceed in an effective and economical manner were drawn from analysis of
public service impacts. This analysis entailed a comparison of the quantity and scheduling of
public services and facilities as projected in the St. Charles Communities Project Agreement,
in the St. Charles Communities Impact Evaluation Study, and in programmed improvements
of government agencies. Findings are presented in the following discussion.
Evaluation of the projected fiscal impact from both cash flow and aggregate impact
standpoints resulted in the conclusion that St. Charles Communities could proceed
according to the Project Agreement development mix and development schedule without
adverse impact on the county or state.
A second major finding related to this directive was a lack of coordinated planning and
implementation capability to deal with the multitude of actions and impacts related to
growth of the New Community. An apparent substitute for such capability had been
developed at the county level in the form of a step-by-step zoning approval process which
precluded comprehensive long-term approval of the development schedule as contained in
the St. Charles Communities Project Agreement. Thus, the first conclusion reached was the
need for coordinated planning of long-term commitments, and for the flexibility to react to
changing conditions in an orderly and predictable fashion. It was also found that
coordinated planning and implementation would have to involve all of the directly
concerned parties vis-a-vis HUD loan guarantee requirements; state funding and service/
facility responsibilities; regional grant administration and coordination functions; county
funding, service/facility, and land-use regulation responsibilities; and contractual/financial
commitments of the developer. It was concluded that satisfaction of public interests and
effective/economical progress of the New Community development could not be accom¬
plished concurrently without the establishment of formal intergovernmental mechanisms
capable of responding to issues on both a regular and comprehensive basis. Several public
service issues are discussed below.
A comparison of projected service and facility needs as contained in this study with
commitments contained in the Project Agreement and in adopted government programs
12
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
1 .
Program for Kqun1
Opportunity Mousing
■
□
A
O
o
2.
Program for Equal
Employment Opportunities
■
■
□
A
o
3.
Program to Encourage
Small Contractors
■
A
A
o
o
4.
Strong Commitment
to Provide/Donate
Education Facilities
■
■
□
A
o
5.
Strong fommilment to
Provide/Donate Health
Fat*i 1 i ties
■
□
A
o
o
6.
Strong Committment to
Provide/Accommodate Other
Community Faeilities
■
□
A
o
o
PHYSICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
I.
Committment to Excellence
In General Physical
Deve1opmcnt
■
■
O
□
A
2.
Committment to Excellence/
Innovation — Residential
■
■
D
□
A
3,
Committment to Excellence/
Innovation -- Commercial
■
■
a
A
o
4.
Committment to Excellence/
Innovation — Industrial
■
■
□
o
o
5.
Committment to Donate/Pro¬
vide Open Space and
Reci'ea tion
■
■
D
A
o
6.
Committment to Provision,
Operation All Public
Utilities
■
□
A
o
o
7 .
Committment to Provide
Public/Educa tiona1
TV Communica tions
■
□
A
o
o
8. Committment to Provide
All Transportation Links &.
Investigate Transit
■
o
A
0
o
9.
Committment to Total
Environmental Protection t
Control
■
■
□
A
o
10.
CommitImenl to Provide
I.,andscape Excellence Kt
Arclii 1 «-c lura I Con t rol
■
■
o
A
o
(.OVKllNMHNTAL
SERVICES—
INSTITUTIONAL
1. Committment to Provide
Public Safety Center &
Rcla ted Faci111les
■
□
A
o
o
STRUCTURE
2.
Committment to Community
Governance & Resident
Involvement
■
o
A
0
0
3.
Committment to Involvement
in Local Governmental
Opera tions
■
o
A
0
0
4.
Committment to Surrounding
Land Development
•
A
0
o
o
5.
Committment to Project
Management
■
□
A
0
o
■ Always/Almost always □ Usually/Often A Seldom/Sometimes
FIGURE 1
ST. CHARLES COMMUNITIES IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX
O Almost Never
resulted in the finding that there were instances of both conflict and inconnplete planning
with respect to quantities and timing of several public facility service areas. Examples of
such findings are summarized as follows;
-- Education Facilities. The primary differences in projections of need for new public
schools were found in the initial eight years of the New Community development
program. The need for seven new elementary schools was forecasted by both the Board of
Education and this impact evaluation study as compared to the need for five schools
projected in the St. Charles Communities Project Agreement. Differences in the opposite
direction included projected need for one middle school and one high school in this study
as compared to the demand for at least two buildings at each level projected by both the
Board of Education and the Project Agreement. The conclusion emphasized from these
findings was that, in view of substantial lead times required, careful monitoring of
enrollment trends and coordinated planning would be essential to the timely and
economical provision of new school facilities during early stages of the New Community
development.
-- Highway Construction. Projected capacity and improvement requirements in the St.
Charles Communities Impact Evaluation Study were compared with both the 20-year
Highway Needs Study (1973-1992) and the Primary-Secondary Construction-Reconstruc¬
tion Program (1974-1978) of the Maryland Department of Transportation. It was found
that the state's long-range studies included all external improvements projected for the
New Community and expected accompanying growth, but that only one of the seven
major improvements required was included in the short-range construction-reconstruction
program of the state. It was concluded, based on a projected population of 11,000 by
1978 in St. Charles Communities, that increased coordination between the county, the
developer, and the state would be essential to provision of highway capacities
commensurate with the rate of growth of the New Community.
- Water Supply, Waste Disposal, Open Space. Although short-range problems stemming
from interagency disagreement were found in the sewage treatment service area, the
prognosis for providing adequate and timely services/facilities was favorable for long-term
water supply, sewerage system, solid waste disposal, and open space-recreation services.
Specific commitments and assignments of responsibility via formal agreements were
characteristics common to these service areas.
- Health, Library, Public Safety Services. Plans and programs for these service areas lacked
specificity at all levels. The most common provisions were commitments to reserve space
and to pursue innovative service delivery systems as contained in the St. Charles
Communities Project Agreement. It was concluded that substantial work was required to
establish formal planning mechanisms, assign specific responsibilities, perform detailed
programming, and coordinate programs with provision of other public facilities and
services.
Directive 5—Monitoring and Evaluating Growth
The findings and conclusions related to definition of a preliminary system for monitoring
and evaluating growth were presented as a series of recommendations to institute an
information/monitoring/evaluation system and an eight-step prescription for developing
14
such a system. Use of evaluation techniques developed for the St. Charles Communities
Impact Evaluation Study was emphasized. The following statements briefly summarize
recommendations prepared in response to this directive:
- The county must establish the detailed framework, format, and use of an information
system related to the county budget process, to county and state land development
decisions, and to other regular government management functions. A major first step in
the establishment of the information system is selection of indicators for decision-making
and continuous monitoring of the impacts of growth and development. It is recom¬
mended that the computer capabilities and present management information system of
the Tri-County Council serve as the vehicle for a comprehensive information system.
- The monitoring-reporting system must be designed to meet the specific needs of
decision-making officials. Provisions for feedback as well as responsiveness to changes in
format, level of detail, and sources of data required by participants must be integral to
the system.
- A county growth model using procedures and techniques contained in the New
Community impact study should be incorporated in the basic information/monitoring
system.
- Goal and performance evaluation procedures should be established using techniques
contained in the New Community impact study as an integral part of the monitoring and
evaluation system.
Directive 6—Evaluation Guidelines and Techniques
Findings and conclusions regarding provision of evaluation guidelines and techniques
useful to other jurisdictions and to agencies directly affected by St. Charles Communities
included recommendations covering intergovernmental coordination, codes and ordinances,
and capital improvements programming. The following conclusions and recommendations
summarize responses to this study directive.
Neither the need for evaluation techniques nor the separate recommendations are
uniquely applicable to jurisdictions subject to New Community or other large-scale
development pressures. What is unique, however, are the problems and opportunities
associated with types of growth that provide a sense of certainty and urgency not usually
stimulated by general long-term population projections. It was concluded that forces for
comprehensive change to local government processes may be stimulated and focused as a
result of the approval and initial development of a New Community or other large-scale
development. The following series of findings and recommendations are important elements
in controlling the process of change in government processes.
Intergovernmental Coordination
- Formal intergovernmental coordination is essential to the guidance of large-scale
development. Findings which support this conclusion included the existence of
conflicting development approvals by separate government agencies, lack of adopted
15
programs for provision of certain public facilities and services, and absence of a formal
structure having the power or ability to deal with fragmented governmental and private
responsibilities.
-- Intergovernmental coordination and participation needs to be organized at the earliest
possible point in the planning process. Insertion of participation and coordination after
major decisions are made is largely academic. This was felt to be the case in the
Tri-County region where some major decisions made prior to the study diminished the
full participation of all agencies and governmental bodies in the St. Charles Communities
Impact Evaluation Study.
-- The multitude of agencies that have direct and indirect interests in the impact of
large-scale development make it difficult to develop issues, concerns, and solutions to
required depths. A coordinating agency should be responsible for presenting the different
interests and concerns of the respective layers of government. For example, the
Department of State Planning could represent state agencies and interests and should
bring in specific agency representatives at appropriate times.
Codes and Ordinances
The following conclusions and recommendations stem from analysis of St. Charles
Communities in the context of county plans and ordinances examined during the course of
the impact evaluation study.
-- St. Charles Communities presents few issues or problems in the area of codes and
ordinances which are distinct from issues raised by other types of growth and
development in an urbanizing community. The New Community does present major
opportunities for the coordinated regulation of a substantial portion of the county's
foreseeable growth. One of these opportunities is to develop coordinated administrative
procedures, working relationships, and planning/development standards which will
establish standards for other development in the county.
- Major administrative measures should include adequate agency support and staffing to
insure that coordination and regulatory tasks can be accomplished. The application and
enforcement of county ordinances should receive major attention inasmuch as they are
significant forces in public growth policy achievement.
- The establishment of regular and detailed record-keeping procedures should be instituted
as a major input for monitoring development trends, assessing development impacts, and
forecasting future growth characteristics.
- The administration of codes and ordinances should be coordinated with other
government management and decision-making processes. Special areas of coordination
would involve capacities of existing facilities and services, capital budgets and
improvement programs, and review procedures for specific areas of public concern (such
as utilities, schools, and roads).
- State and county regulations concerning sewage disposal and water supply are designed as
measures to protect public health. Application and enforcement of those regulations have
additional effects of curbing scattered subdivisions in rural areas and of affording
16
environmental safeguards. Since these latter two effects are also regulated by other
instruments of public policy, it is essential that coordination of regulations, procedures,
and agencies be established and maintained.
Capital Improvements Programming
The study emphasized capital improvements programming as a tool to continuously
evaluate the impacts of New Community and other growth. It was concluded that the
capital improvement program process could serve as a financial management tool, focus
intergovernmental coordination efforts, and function as a component of a potential
comprehensive land-use guidance system for the county. The following recommendations
were offered;
- The county should actively pursue a three-phased program of capital improvements
planning. This program should include a consolidated projection of 20-year capital needs
based on the long-range development plan, a five-year capital improvements program, and
a one-year capital budget.
- Although the county should retain major responsibility for capital improvement planning,
the total program should be developed in accord with an intergovernmental coordination
committee. The cooperative approach would allow other agencies, such as the State
Department of Transportation, Utility Authorities, etc., to coordinate their projects and
relate more closely to needs, issues, and growth policies of the county.
Figure 2 presents an illustrative summary of the capital programming process.
17
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL PROGRAMMING PROCESS
Figure 2
b
BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Evanston: 820 Davis Street. Evanston, Illinois 60201 (312) 491-10(X)
Washington, D.C.: 1730 K Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 466.8230
Minneapolis.St.Paul: Ten CMar Square West/Cedar-Riverside, 1610 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 (612) 332.0421
San Josa: 4320 Stevens Creelt Boulevard, Suite 220, San Jose, California 95129 (408) 249-5300
Los Angeles: Suite 334, Bradbury Building, 304 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, California 9(X)13
(213) 624.6662
Toronto: Barton-Aschman Canada Limited, 111 Avenue Road, Suite 604,Toronto, Ontario M5R 3J8
(416) 961-7110