The continued expansion of the Chicago metropolitan area and a combination of other factors have led to significant growth pressures on communities in several areas of northern Illinois. These factors include: land values, transportation routes, proximity to services such as airports or major employment centers, and natural aesthetic features. In fact, McHenry County, in the northwest corner of the Chicago metropolitan region, is the fastest growing county in the state, having risen in population from 147,897 to 224,677 in the period from 1980 to 1995, an increase of 52 percent, according to data furnished by the U.S. Census Bureau. Similar growth pressures, although of varying degrees of intensity, have manifested themselves around Chicago and can be found adjacent to other major cities in the state.

The above use of the term "pressures" is deliberate, and implies that such growth, while part of a continuing trend in the area, is not without its problems. Indeed, it seems that the tide of public opinion has begun to shift away from acceptance of growth as natural and positive. Instead, greater resistance is building towards development of almost any type. That resistance comes in many forms, but primarily in opposition to housing developments which are perceived as adding intolerable traffic burdens, overcrowding of schools, unacceptable reductions of open space or environmental quality, or a host of other ills — real, imagined, or exaggerated — to people's lives or their communities. However, residents still continue to want and need services provided not only by the public sector, but also by the private sector, which under our free enterprise system presumably benefits from growth.

Ironically, much of the opposition to growth comes from people who help cause it. Often one will find that it is not long-time residents of a particular locale who oppose new projects, but people who have moved into a community within a relatively recent period. The "discoverers" find a desirable place to live and then want municipal officials to "pull up the drawbridge" so that no one else can enter behind them. Of course, the problem becomes a refusal to recognize that what drew them there is what is bringing in others, creating a self-generating and self-defeating cycle of conflict over who should decide how much development is enough.

The purpose of this article is neither to defend nor attack growth, but to recognize its inevitability and to discuss ways to deal with it, given today's realities. The "no growth" catchphrase has become fashionable, but simply saying "no" to further development is unrealistic (because it would imply economic stagnation, which no one really wants) and would have a dubious legal basis. Municipal officials always face a balancing act between an individual property owner's constitutional right to develop his/her land in some fashion and their legal authority to guide that development for the common good of the community. It is certainly crucial to do this in a responsible manner, regardless of the precise development philosophy of the community.

"Growth" does not even share a common definition. Some see growth only in terms of "new development," whereas expansion and upgrading of existing development, or even redevelopment, can also be called growth. In rapidly expanding suburbs on the fringe of urban areas, growth views are usually focused on conversion of agricultural land to a built environment. In reality, growth is a complex function of economic evolution that honors no boundaries.

Granted, there are many thoughtful people who believe that the continued consumption of land in the Chicago area is a serious mistake. They suggest that 'efforts should be expended to make better use of existing infrastructure, redevelop areas that are no longer desirable or economically viable, or encourage the return of population to the central city. The term "urban sprawl" is often used in its most negative connotations in this regard. On the other hand, there are those who believe that such a philosophy smacks of "social engineering" that will never work. This article, then, seeks to address growth without resorting to either extreme.

May 1996 I Illinois Municipal Review / Page 9

Growth Management
The current term used within the planning and city management profession to deal with rapid development pressures is "growth management." Sometimes the expression "growth control" is also employed, although the former is a more inclusive and appropriate term. Growth management in its most basic sense refers to a systematic process whereby a community seeks to guide the timing and location of land development in an orderly manner, although it is often stretched in meaning and application to more subjective issues such as the quality and appearance of development.

This process is not the same as the rightful exercise of traditional zoning powers, or even adoption of an up-to-date Comprehensive Plan, although it shares some of the same attributes. The type of development, as well as its physical character and quality, can be governed not only through zoning regulation and the planning process, but by specific growth management techniques. Such a program combines various land use regulations with the provision of associated capital improvements and public services,

While in-depth discussion of all the various techniques that have been employed in growth management is beyond the scope of this article, the following points will describe most of the major techniques developed and employed within various fast-growing communities in McHenry County, and which would have general applicability to many other locales. Development of a growth management program is typically comprehensive in scope, tying together such tools as the community's Comprehensive Plan; multi-year capital projects plans; more specific subplans, such as those dealing with transportation, parks/open space, or recreational facilities; revenue and expenditure forecasts; and other development policies unique to that community. However, municipalities successfully engaged in growth management also then add highly-targeted implementation techniques which are structured and applied to meet the specific needs of the situation.

General Objectives
The structure of units of government in Illinois lends itself to different responsibilities for development than might otherwise occur in other areas of the country. For example, municipalities govern land use, and while a school district may be affected by such decisions, it has relatively little say in the matter. Some services, such as parks and recreation, or wastewater treatment, may be provided by either the municipality or by other governmental bodies within the same, similar, or overlapping boundaries. The purpose of a growth management program, then, is to take into account all of the impacts on public services that development brings, rather than merely addressing the areas of concern or control that are exclusive to a municipality. Furthermore, the process is forward-thinking and forward-acting, so that growth is managed pro-actively, rather than reacted to.

Twelve specific objectives or philosophies that are met by such a program are as follows;
— requiring new development to pay its own way;
— designing and providing adequate infrastructure, fairly apportioned to those benefitting from it;
— coordinating capital improvements with other governmental agencies;
— ensuring that services and facilities are in place to support the development at the time it occurs;
— mitigating the effect of increased traffic;
— preserving community character;
— providing adequate park space and/or recreational facilities, school sites/facilities, and similar      amenities;
— helping maintain financial stability of all units of government, not just the municipality;
— pacing development according to the ability of the community to handle it;
— maintaining current service levels for current residents (i.e. without degradation of quality or      timeliness of services because resources become unevenly distributed between existing and      growth neighborhoods);
— reserving adequate time for community officials to keep plans and subplans up to date, to      evaluate facilities and service delivery, and to otherwise be prepared to respond to new      development trends; and
— educating the public about a community's planning efforts and maintaining its responsiveness to      citizen concerns.

The above list could certainly be expanded. In any event, the focus should be on objectives that are both concrete in nature and closely tied to growth issues, not just "development" in general. Objectives such as "reducing density," "protecting the environment," "controlling population growth," "holding down taxes," and "stablizing housing prices," to name but a few, are laudatory and important, but they are also more nebulous. An objective such as "diversifying the tax base," which implies a development philosophy of establishing some proportion of residential to non-residential properties, is probably not directly linked to growth. Such accomplishments may be viewed as a result of successful implementation of growth management techniques, as well as employing the zoning powers already bestowed on the community.

Furthermore, while several of these twelve objectives overlap, they still lead to a rational method of guiding the location and timing of development, as well

Page 10 / Illinois Municipal Review / May 1996

as addressing its most immediate impacts. The last objective is particularly important because most people do not know how a community governs land use, or are prone to gather a considerable number of misinformed impressions about the process. Thus a municipality should be prepared to address perceived problems associated with growth as much as, if not more so, those that are real problems, always striving to have a well-informed public.

A Survey of Growth Management Techniques
Some of the principal growth management techniques in use are briefly described below. Due to space limitations, a comprehensive technical and procedural discussion of each item is not possible. Some are well-known and obvious; others are perhaps more novel.
• Impact Fees. These are also termed developer donations, although such are not truly contributions, but assessments of some fashion on a development as a condition of its approval in order to deal with the impacts created. These fees are designed to offset the initial cost of providing services or land acquisition for public facilities. Impact fees are most frequently used for parks and schools. Many communities also assess fees for libraries, fire protection, and other municipal services.
• Tying development approvals to a capital improvements plan that addresses such issues as phased installations of public improvements, definition of service areas, fair-share developer charges for the impact a development will have on various facilities, and the timing of installations/upgrades before occupancies may occur.
• Entering into boundary agreements with adjacent communities so that infrastructure can be planned appropriately to known service areas, and to prevent developers from see-sawing development proposals between municipalities to obtain "better deals."
• Annexations. Municipalities should use the power of annexation (which is a privilege, not a right) to ensure that comprehensive and clear annexation agreements are entered into, outlining the rights and responsibilities of all parties, consistent with the other objectives listed in this article.
• Correlating growth to fiscal impact. Municipalities should require a professionally-prepared community impact statement that identifies fiscal impacts on all public jurisdictions (not just the municipality), showing all assumptions and methodology, identifying factors such as demographics and tax rates, and showing effects on services. Such a statement should usually be reviewed by an independent planning consultant (at the developer's expense) as well as by staff. Alternatively, some communities have their own model which they calculate based on a developer's proposal.
• Performing careful review of development proposals to ensure that plans fit into the overall development pattern of the community.
• Requiring project phasing to help pace development. Such techniques include limits on percentages of a project that can obtain building permits in a given period, or requiring projects to be broken into smaller phases or units, then separating preliminary from final platting approval of those units according to some timeframe or build-out "trigger" (such as completion of certain infrastructure improvements).
• On-site and site-related improvements. Examples of this technique relative to transportation would include traffic signal installations or contributions, deceleration or turn lanes, street and/or bike path connections, and the like. A traffic study should be required for every significant development proposal.
• Maintaining an updated pricing study for revenue systems, such as water sewer, to ensure that rates and tap-on fees are funding the operations and reserves at appropriate levels.
• Requiring other units of government that receive developer contributions to conduct "needs assessments" and to develop a plan for land acquisition and capital construction, detailing estimated funding sources and tax impacts, which should be updated on a regular basis.
• Reviewing fees, charges, and the regulatory process itself to ensure that the review and permitting process is consistent, orderly, and that its costs are recovered.
• Keeping the Comprehensive Plan current, and employing self-discipline to follow it. Sometimes there is good justification to deviate from the plan, but if a development is to be approved that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the community's codes should require that the plan is amended concurrently with the project's approval in order to reflect that impact.
• Hosting joint work sessions with everyone involved in the development process (e.g. appointed officials on a Zoning Board of Appeals, Plan Commission, and/or Economic Development Commission, elected officials, and staff) to share information, discuss the community's goals, needs, and procedures, and in general to engage in team-building so that citizen volunteers can better support the mission of the organization by "buying into" a growth management program.
• Maintaining a resident notification program that not only ensures that citizens are informed of current proposals in the review process, but that officials are accessible to the community when projects are considered. In addition, the program should regularly communicate to the public what the community stands for. How many municipalities can truly say that they have a

May 1996 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 11

Summary
In a metropolitan area, no community acts in isolation. The causes and impacts of growth are regional in nature, complex, rarely attributable to the development of one or even a few parcels, heavily interdependent, not readily solvable with single or simple solutions, and build up over a relatively long time.

Creating and administering an effective growth management program requires considerable time, effort, and a fair amount of expense to assemble its components. It requires talent and availability of staff and/or consultants to implement and maintain it; a willingness to work, communicate, and coordinate plans with other units of government; and courage to hold to standards that reflect a long-term view to the future regardless of the exigencies of the moment. Such a program has to be as much a way of thinking as a collection of ordinances and documents.

The issues of growth are issues of change. Orderly development, balanced with preservation of the established quality of life and protection of natural resources, as well as a willingness to constantly evaluate services and standards, can help turn growth into positive change. However, a community that does not manage or balance its growth in a responsible manner may find out too late that it has seriously impacted its infrastructure, financial health, operational flexibility, long-term relationships with its citizens, and perhaps most importantly, its reputation as a place where people want to live and work. •

2. the fundamental restructuring and consolidation of local governmental entities.

His article (written in planner speak) deals mostly with the restructuring with local government. Mr. Neu portrays an oppressed citizenry governed by local officials who are hopelessly unable to focus on or deal with community problems. He says that Americans are fragmenting into an increasing number of local governmental entities due to migration from big cities and states that:

1. the public has caught on that local government cannot handle community issues, and

2. citizens are confused and frustrated over who is accountable for what.

Mr. Neu's "simple truth" concludes that local governments need to be redefined into regional governments. He says that "smart-growth" citizens want:

1. a more global perspective for political decision making which will lead to

2. a more participatory "town meeting" democracy. He says that:

1. "smart-growth forum" people are coming up with great ideas which are being mauled and muted by local governments.

2. local government can not handle programs coming back from Washington, D.C.

3. local governments are incapable of cooperating for their own benefit.

4. local government serves only to satisfy the ego of elected officials who are incapable of providing good government.

Neu recommends:
1. changing the State Constitution to handle government on a regional basis and wipe out most of the current political units.

2. that we move beyond "consent government"

3. that we institute machinery to impose the desires of the "smart-growth" people in an expanded "global" community.

4. that current leaders abandon their units of government and surrender to the needs of the "new communities. " Neu suggests that:

1. the public is demanding the change from consent government and

2. the public is liable to revolt with radical political initiatives and political agendas.

To the contrary, I can state without the need to explain that:
1. The public is more satisfied with local than any other level of government.

2. The public is better able to participate in smaller, not larger government.

3. The public is more satisfied with "consent" government than with imposed rules.

4. The public interest is better protected by local government.

5. Local government is more accountable than is any other level of government.

6. Local governments already have the power given by the Illinois State Constitution to co-operate, delegate and consolidate in order to accommodate new demands on their services.

Let's keep local government as local, as accountable and as consensual as possible. •

Donald L. Wilber
Attorney at Law
Colfax

Page 12 / Illinois Municipal Review / May 1996