[Home | Overview | Syllabus | Schedule | Links]

---

Much of the following discussion is excepted from the Transporation & Growth Managment publication Tools of the Trade.

Coordination and Intergovernmental Agreements

Fragmented decision-making authority among cities, counties, and special districts hinders growth management because:

The large number of local governments and special districts responsible for providing urban services can make coordination between land use planning and providing urban services more complex

Regional issues are hard to address because no single jurisdiction has responsibility

Development is on a smaller scale or fragmented because jurisdictions may not have the authority, fiscal ability, or economic incentive to take on large scale development

Counties may not have the ability to address urban services issues because they may not provide those types of services

A range of coordination techniques exist that vary from informal to formal. They include:

• Interagency communication. Phone calls, letters, information requests, public notices and meetings.

• Workshop or conference. Topics and experts should be selected to meet the needs and interests of the jurisdictions. These events must be more than a good means for education; they must provide for active participation and an exchange of ideas.

• Joint work session. A more structured format to collaborate on a specific project.

• Task force. A formal committee to work on more complex and longer term projects.

• Memorandum of understanding. Establishes general guidelines for coordination, usually on specific issues. May be easier to get because they are not legally binding.

• Intergovernmental agreement. A legal agreement that establishes specific roles and responsibilities between two or more jurisdictions.

Urban Growth Management Agreements

Urban growth management agreements should:

• Name a lead jurisdiction responsible for growth management decisions, such as planning, zoning, and urban service extensions

• Set land-use designations and zoning

• Establish urban service standards

Possible decision making structures include

Joint Board. Local jurisdictions can create a joint board or committee to deal with growth management issues. The board might be made up of elected officials or planning commissioners from the city and county. Such a joint board could be advisory or they could make the actual decisions.

Cross-Acceptance. Cross-acceptance is a negotiation process developed by the State of New Jersey to make state and local plans more consistent with each other. It is a technique that provides for the systematic review of plans by two or more jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction determines whether the other's plans are consistent or can be made compatible with its own. The process should provide for communication and negotiation, including the use of third party dispute resolution.

Combination of Approaches. Urban areas with more than two jurisdictions may choose a combination of the above approaches. For example, in a single county growth area with two cities, the county might have lead responsibility and the two cities might have a cross-acceptance procedure. Or, the two cities might have individual lead responsibility for specific subareas within the UGB.

In addition to the decision-making structure, the jurisdiction must agree on some major issues such as:

• Land use designations. Who decides what goes where? The UGMA can establish a procedure for designating land uses in the UGA. It also should establish a process for expanding the UGB.

• Urban Service Standards. Whose standards apply where? The agreement should resolve whose standards apply in different cases. The agreement may include the standards, or refer to them in another document.

• Annexation and interim controls. The UGA is the future growth area for the city. The UGMA should establish review procedures for annexations. It also might include rules for restricting short-term development to make it easier to develop at urban densities in the future.

• Maintaining the UGMA. The agreement should establish a dispute resolution process for conflicts between the jurisdictions. It also should provide for periodic review and update of the agreement.

Stronger UGMAs reinforce the framework for making urban growth management decisions and are expected to have the following effects:

• Reduce fragmented growth management authority by designating lead or joint responsibilities. When a lot of different agencies are making decisions, they do not always know what the others are doing. With a revised UGMA, local jurisdictions should have a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities for land use and public facility planning inside the UGB.

• UGMAs apply to the unincorporated area between the city limits and the UGB. Streamline the approval process by clarifying responsibilities and procedures. Many of the existing UGMAs often require two sets of approvals, one from the county and one from the city. A revised UGMA can reduce delays by delegating authority to one jurisdiction.

• Resolve issues regarding the provision of urban services. In some cases more than one jurisdiction may be able to provide an urban service. The UGMA can designate lead responsibility for individual services. It can establish standards and financing mechanisms for urban services. The transition from rural to urban levels of service is also a critical issue. The UGMA can state when a higher level of service will be needed. These issues can be worked out in more detail through an Urban Service Agreement.

There are several issues to consider when strengthening an UGMA:

• Framework for addressing larger issues. The UGMA should create a framework for addressing issues that affect the entire UGB. Individual decisions that may impact other jurisdictions should be coordinated. These decisions could be subject to a cross-acceptance process to establish consistency between various plans.

• Road standards. Smaller cities may be particularly concerned about the transition from rural to urban road standards. Unlike city streets, roads in rural areas typically do not have sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The issue is who will be responsible for the cost of installing curbs and sidewalks after an area is annexed. Right of way and street widths may also be an issue.

• Revising the UGMA. Many jurisdictions form a task force consisting of high-level management staff from the appropriate agencies (planning, public works, water, sewer, etc.) from each jurisdiction. This task force will work through issues and produce an agreement for review and adoption by each governing board.

• Political feedback. In using a task force approach, a feedback loop is important to ensure that points of agreement at the task force level are supported by policy makers and elected officials. This feedback is especially important to ensure that policy makers are comfortable with the approaches recommended by the task force.

• Public participation. Likewise, it is important that area residents and stakeholders, including the development community, participate in the revision of the UGMA.

• Authority and Representation. Delegation of responsibilities from one local government to another is authorized under state law (ORS 190.010). However, area voters may be concerned about transferring of authority to a governing board that is not directly elected by them.

Urban Service Agreements

Cooperative agreements shouldt:

• Describe how special districts will be involved in comprehensive planning

• Establish the roles and responsibilities of each special district with respect to city or county approval of new development

• Establish city or county roles and responsibilities with respect to special district planning activities

Urban service agreements focus more on service delivery issues between providers. Urban service agreements should:

• Address the basic issue of which governments will be responsible for providing an urban service. This includes establishing roles for each provider and determining the future service area for each service provider. These decisions should be based on future growth trends that will impact each service.

• Address the factors related to providing each service. This includes considering the level of service and the cost of providing each service. Design and construction standards should be included, or at least referred to in a separate document. The agreement also should consider eliminating the duplication of facilities. New development and existing development should be responsible for their fair share of the costs.

• Address the financial and operational capacity of each provider. This includes defining transition standards and other measures needed to enhance the cost efficiency of providing urban services.

• Address the charges to each urban service user. These charges should reflect the differences in the costs of providing services to the users. Also, the agreement should ensure that taxpayers only have to pay for the services they receive.

There are several issues to consider when negotiating these agreements:

• Data collection. Data collection and system inventories are the basis for making decisions. It is important to agree on a methodology. For example, agreement on cost accounting methods will help establish credibility. If the basic information is in dispute, it is difficult to reach agreement on policy issues.

• Maintain ability to serve. Special districts provide services in either incorporated or unincorporated areas, both inside urban growth areas and in rural areas. Urban service agreements may involve adjustments to service areas. As areas are annexed to a city, the city usually assumes responsibility for providing all urban services. There may be impacts on the district's remaining service area. For example, if a special district's service area is significantly reduced, the district needs to find ways to continue to provide cost- effective services to the remaining customers of the district.

• Transition of services. If an agreement provides for the elimination, consolidation or reduction in size of a service provider, then a number of issues need to be addressed. The capital debt and finances of the affected provider need to be carefully considered. The agreement also should address the need for changes in rates or service charges. Employee transfers should be considered when facilities are transferred between service providers.

• Lead responsibility. Simply put, the basic political issue to be addressed by urban service agreements is who is going to be the ultimate service provider for an urban growth area. Each provider can play a different type of role: sole provider, partner with other providers, oversight, or they may not have a direct role. Users need to be able to identify and contact service providers easily. Service providers need to be accountable to their customers.

• Political acceptability. Negotiations for these agreements usually start at the staff level but final approval comes from the governing boards. It is important to incorporate political realities into the agreement, especially when considering different service delivery alternatives. During the negotiations, elected officials and other decision- makers should be consulted to gauge the political acceptability of the alternatives. A public involvement process should also provide an opportunity for comment on the agreement.

• Build or rebuild relationships. Negotiations for urban service agreements will be affected by past experiences and relationships. Looking at past disputes may provide insights into working towards new relationships. In some cases, where there might be long-standing conflicts, the use of an outside mediator may help participants.

---

[Home | Overview | Syllabus | Schedule | Links]

This page maintained by Bob Parker, ©2000
April 26, 2000