Jon Osmond PA8202Policy Brief 11: What is the likely effect of implementing an Urban GrowthBoundary and/or concurrency regulations?There has been an increased interest in recent years about the use of UrbanGrowth Boundaries (UGBs) as potential tools to promote the efficient use of land,public facilities, and services. This interest is largely due to the perception bypolicymakers that many land use planning strategies have failed to "curb sprawl”(Pendall, Martin, and Fulton 2002).There is little rigorous empirical analysis available about the effectiveness ofUGBs and existing scholarly research remains questionable with regard to thetrue impacts and costs of implementing UGB policies (Pendall, Martin, and Fulton2002). However, much descriptive material does exist about UGBs and basedon this research and knowledge, it is possible to draw some preliminaryconclusions about the probable effects of implementing UGBs (Pendall, Martin,and Fulton 2002).It is important to note that UGBs are part of a broader array of land use tools thathave traditionally been known as "growth management". Growth managementdoes not just include UGBs, but also includes infrastructure policies, and landacquisition strategies as well as a wide range of other tools that may try to controlthe rate of growth or mitigate its impact (Kelly 1993). Although these tools andpolicies do have an affect on urban growth, they are not dealt with in detail in thisbrief.Urban Growth Boundaries DefinedUGBs are simply land use regulations that prohibit urban development outside acertain boundary. Many localities, particularly in the West, have used UGBs tocontain future development and to protect agricultural land and open space fromdevelopment with the intent of encouraging more livable urban spaces (Pendall,Martin, and Fulton 2002). Under the UGB concept, a government – at the local,2county, regional, or state level – estimates the amount of land needed for newbusinesses, housing, recreation, and other forms of development for a givenperiod of time. Then a line is drawn around this land with new developmentoccurring within the line but not outside it (Bollier 1998). It is possible to change aUGB from time to time when conditions demand it and UGBs are oftendeliberately designated to accommodate growth for a specified period of time –usually 20 to 30 years – and revisited periodically to be changed as necessary(Pendall, Martin, and Fulton 2002).As mentioned earlier, a wide variety of tools can affect urban growth along withUGBs. These tools include regulation, public ownership of land, and policiesregarding the timing and sequencing of public infrastructure construction (Nelsonand Duncan 1995). For example, an urban service area like the MetropolitanCouncil’s MUSA is a more flexible form of an UGB. It denotes a line beyondwhich a city has decided that its infrastructure – typically sewer and water –should not extend. In many metro areas, urban service areas support a "tiering"system – that is, a system that directs public infrastructure into new areas in aparticular sequence – in order to eliminate "leapfrog" development, encourageorderly urban expansion, and reduce the cost of public infrastructure (Pendall,Martin, and Fulton 2002). Urban services are also often tied to adequate publicfacilities ordinances (APFOs) – tools adopted by municipalities and counties torestrict or prohibit new urban growth unless that growth is served by roads, publicwater, public sewers, and other urban infrastructure (Pendall, Martin, and Fulton2002).Motivation—4-E’sGrowth management advocates have heavily promoted UGBs in recent years.However, UGBs still appear to be exceptions rather than the rule in most parts ofthe country and they appear to be found mostly in the West (Pendall, Martin, andFulton 2002). The underlying motivations to implement UGBs can vary widely.However, the primary goals of most UGBs are to address land use problems3associated with efficiency, equity, experience (quality of life), and environment.According to the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy,the primary goals of UGBs are as follows: (1) the preservation of natural land, aswell as farmland and resource extraction land whose economic value will not beable to compete with urban development; (2) the cost-efficient construction anduse of urban infrastructure; (3) the reinvestment in existing urbanized areas thatmight otherwise be neglected; and (4) the creation of higher-density land-usepatterns that encourage a mix of uses and patronage of public transit, leading toa more efficient utilization of land in urbanized areas (Pendall, Martin, and Fulton2002).Description and BackgroundAs mentioned earlier, UGBs still appear exceptions rather than the rule in mostparts of the country. About half of the states have overhauled their local planninglegislation in the past 30 years to require or encourage some kind of growthmanagement system (Pendall, Martin, and Fulton 2002). Often, these "growthmanagement" or "smart growth" amendments have been designed to encouragemore orderly, predictable, and efficient urban growth, or they have required orencouraged local governments to engage in some form of growth management(Pendall, Martin, and Fulton 2002). In some cases – Oregon and Washington inparticular – the overhauls have explicitly required local and regional governmentsto designate urban growth boundaries whereas statutory overhauls in Minnesota(for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area), Florida, Maryland, and Tennessee havefocused on infrastructure policy by combining urban service areas, tieringsystems, and local adequate public facilities ordinances (Pendall, Martin, andFulton 2002). Beyond these mandatory approaches to growth management,other states have enacted new incentives and explicitly permitted growthmanagement programs. For example, New Jersey and Maine both haveprocedures that require state agencies to give priority to investments in locallydesignated growth areas and limit them in areas designated for little or nodevelopment UGBs (Johnson et al. 2002; Pendall, Martin, and Fulton 2002).4Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona recently amended their planning laws;explicit language in these states enables municipalities to establish urban serviceareas or UGBs (Johnson et al. 2002; Pendall, Martin, and Fulton 2002).Normally, urban service areas or UGB policies are adopted at the local andcounty government level and