The country in general is also beginning to experience an explosion of concern about current development patterns. The rapid rise of residential and commercial development on the outskirts of our town centers raises uneasiness about the health of our farmland, our water and air resources, the open and wild places, and the functionality of our neighborhoods - basically the essence of what makes a community a vital and pleasant place to live.
In my county, suburban sprawl, over the last three decades, has depleted our farmland and natural resource base, and threatened the lifestyle of our Amish and Mennonite communities - the very things that make Lancaster County so unique and so appealing.
Important on the list of growth-related problems is the financial burden that residential sprawl is placing on county governments, which supply services and infrastructure to new housing, often without a comparable tax base to cover the costs. We are struggling with these issues, and it is very important that we step forward to assert our role as leaders. We are on the front lines when it comes to making the decisions that shape our communities. And, as the government closest to the people, it makes sense for us to do sot
We are aware that some are encouraging the federal government and state legislatures to take the decisions about land use out of the hands of elected officials and place them in the hands of appointed regional bodies or state entities who would establish growth or planning policies applicable to all local governments. State mandates or preemption of local land use decisionmaking has already happened in some states.
For example, in Tennessee, counties and cities have been mandated to adopt state- designed growth plans by July 2001. In Florida, state-appointed regional water districts have a great deal of authority to approve or deny certain land uses. On the other hand, states like Virginia make it very difficult for counties to manage growth, requiring, for example, specific authorization from the legislature before a county is allowed to impose ``impact'' fees on developers.
The approach of the National Association of Counties (NACo) - on whose behalf I am speaking today - is to better equip counties make decisions about "smart" growth alternatives for themselves. What do we mean by "smart" growth? NACo believes that it includes efforts that accommodate growth in a way that integrates fiscal prosperity and environmental quality, and efforts that enhance the unique attributes of counties that are valued by the community. In particular, NACo supports comprehensive local land use planning as a mechanism for achieving "smart" growth" because we believe that how we use our land directly affects our ability to maintain a high quality of life for existing and future residents NACo's Board of Directors recently listed Smart Growth as a priority issue for the next three years. Our Western Interstate Region has established a goal of providing tools to western counties to manage growth and develop sustainable policies. In conjunction with the Sonoran Institute, we will be working with county officials in 11 western states to promote effective growth management that balances environmental, economic and community concerns.
We have been holding extraordinarily-popular workshops and working team sessions at our conferences for the last two years, and are hearing over and over from our members that growth management is one of the most significant challenges facing county officials. NACo recently established a Smart Growth Committee, which I am honored to chair, to guide our activities over the next year, and we expect to be developing tools and techniques that counties can use to implement their plans.
At the same time, we recognize that we derive our legal authority primarily from state government, and without the necessary ability to control land uses, we will remain limited in our ability to implement our comprehensive plans and manage growth in a manner appropriate to the character of our communities.
Information from the nation's counties indicates that there are states that do not grant their local governments authority to make land use decisions. The 1998 NACo Operations Survey Analysis showed that only 66 per cent of the counties surveyed had authority to do comprehensive planning. Only 40 per cent had the ability to do transportation planing and only 22 per cent had the power to collect impact fees. These figures show that some state legislatures have failed to give us the tools we need to manage our growth.
In my own state of Pennsylvania, counties are not allowed to control land uses; zoning authority is vested in the boroughs and municipalities. Similar laws are found in Ohio and Michigan. Other states like Virginia require each county to petition the state legislature for specific authority to control growth -- authority that if not granted, prohibits the county from enacting local ordinances. Every state has its own distinct land use statutes; some states simply fail to respect local autonomy and authority. We urge all states to provide enabling legislation to allow county governments to adopt whatever tools are needed to manage their own growth. In addition, states should provide incentives for local governments to work together, so that the traditional tensions between municipalities and counties can be overcome.
On the federal level, we see other policies that indirectly limit local land use decisionmaking. For example, federal facilities like post offices are generally exempt from local zoning ordinances. Federal regulations on endangered species, air pollution, landfill siting, and stormwater management sometimes put portions of land in our counties "off limits" for development, even when those areas may be more appropriate locations for some land uses than others.
NACo recently revised our national policies on preemption to firmly oppose any efforts of Congress or regulatory agencies to impose prescriptive requirements that intrude on local decision making. This is especially applicable to land use decisions, and we will continue our campaign to object to any federal activities that preempt our authority.
Managing growth, I want to emphasize, shouldn't mean stopping development or closing the door to new residents. A comprehensive growth management system can provide a framework that enables counties to balance and accommodate diverse and competing interests. Unlike traditional subdivision platting and zoning which are two dimensional, growth management adds a third dimension - timing, or the pace of growth.
We have some good models to look at around the country, and I wanted to spend a minute reviewing a few of those with you. Let me start with my own county.
Despite Lancaster County's lack of authority over zoning, we have been able to accomplish a great deal. Our strategy was to create an "urban growth boundaries" beyond which only farm activities were allowed. The County, through sheer persuasion - and some significant financial assistance - has convinced most of the municipalities to include the urban growth boundary in their comprehensive plans, and so far it seems to be working. Within the urban growth boundaries, the County monitors development, actively promotes affordable housing and reasonable densities, and encourages the planning and development of infrastructure to support development. We also assist the municipalities by assigning a professional planner to help them draft and implement their urban growth boundaries and zoning ordinances.
Counties in other states, like Erie County in New York and Pierce County in Washington State have developed a series of interlocal agreements with their municipalities to develop "urban growth area policies", providing guidelines for the county and municipal comprehensive plans.
Another growth management technique is not new, but is being increasingly used across the country -- an impact or development fee on land developers. As you know, this is a very controversial topic, but about 22 states allow it and local governments keep seeking such authority from state legislatures. Impact fees can help reduce the pressure on counties to approve subdivisions before the roads, schools, and water and sewer lines are installed.
Other techniques - critical areas designation or performance standards for environmentally sensitive lands, designation of regionally important resources - like historical or natural areas - all can be useful in managing and directing growth.
Another key technique is the transfer or purchase of development rights. With this tool, the county is allowed to sever the rights of the property owner to develop a piece of property from that parcel and transfer those rights to other property. Therefore, a farmer can sell his development rights in a rural area, and the rights can be exercised by the developer in another part of the county that has water and sewer connections, as well improved roads. The farmer agrees to establish a conservation easement on the property, forever preventing any future development.
Another increasingly popular technique is outright purchase of open spaces by local and state governments. There were over 200 new referenda passed around the country in the last election where voters agreed to new bond issues or programs for purchasing green spaces. These acquisition programs are very popular with the voters because they promise to preserve natural resources, and many states are devoting state general funds to help protect such areas.
On the federal level, we are hearing about some interesting proposals for additional funding and assistance, and we welcome the federal concern about growth management. We would look with favor on programs that assist us with acquiring land, purchasing development rights, and obtaining staff expertise. We also would like to see a national clearinghouse of information about alternative land use planning practices and programs.
We would only caution that any federal funding be careful to respect local land use decisionmaking. The questions that we will be asking in evaluating any new federal programs or federal funds are the following: "Will they be consistent with local comprehensive land use plans? Can we take advantage of federal programs because they complement what we do, or will federal growth management goals conflict with the goals we have established within our communities?" We hope the answers will always be "yes".
In conclusion, there are a wide variety of tools, both already available and in the proposal stage, that hold a promise for better management of our land resources and better control over growth. But we have to be careful that in the effort, local governments' decisionmaking isn't pushed aside, and that our authority to determine what our community looks like isn't relegated to merely advisory. We look forward to working with this committee toward that end.