"Impact fees and More"

Distinguished guests and Rotarians

It’s a great privilege to be here and have the opportunity to speak to so many of the leaders of this City in which we are fortunate to live and work. I’m sure my choice of topic comes as a surprise to no one!

In the fall of 2000, Smart Growth Aiken organized and began a campaign for better management of growth in Aiken.

There was a widely held perception among founding members that the Planning Commission and City Council were ignoring the Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan that according to the Planning Commission Chairman "was just a guideline.’ The fact that the longtime Chairman was a major realtor/developer was also a cause for concern. Many felt that City Council was approving new projects without adequate planning for the traffic problems and other infrastructure needs created by them.

Smart growth members first tried working with the City’s elected officials. Suggestions were offered about updating and following the comprehensive plan, about big boxes and traffic management.

Early in 2001, a joint meeting of Smart Growth, the Planning Commission and City Council was held and there was some hope that progress was being made. Unfortunately Smart Growth hopes were dashed on June 25, 2001, when despite large scale opposition from local residents, the City Council approved 5 to 2 the Woodside Phase 3 annexation of more than 500 acres including a commercial parcel to open onto Silver Bluff Road. Only Council members Clyburn and Price voted against the ordinance. The developer agreement also required the City to reimburse the Woodside developer 8.00 dollars per linear foot of roadway, estimated at that time to cost more than $350,000, to install concrete curbs and gutters.

Many Woodside residents as well as citizens throughout the City and County were angered by the Council’s action and a small group of citizens resolved to elect new members to City Council. Elections were scheduled for November 2001 and a search for candidates began. Jane Vaughters who was not a Smart Growth member decided on her own the very night of the Woodside vote to run for an at-large seat.

A committee of Woodside residents including myself searched hard for a District 4 candidate, but failed to find anyone. At the last moment I decided to run even though I had lived in Aiken for just a year and a half and was not very well known in the community. The Smart Growth Board and a group of Woodside residents promised to give their full support and indeed they did.

Jane Vaughters and I did not know each other but since our goals were similar our campaign paths crossed frequently and we ultimately decided to run as a team. Aiken’s voters had the opportunity to "See Dick and Jane Run." A large number of highly motivated supporters and this old guy walked the streets of Aiken during the heat of summer campaigning and many letters were sent to the Editors of the papers.

To the satisfaction of many and the dismay of some, Dick and Jane were elected with convincing margins. The major goals during the campaign were – new thinking about growth; fresh ideas about traffic; and better representation on boards and commissions. The theme was "Protect Aiken’s Future"

In preparing to take office we new Council members learned that by ordinance, the terms of Board and Commission members do not coincide with the terms of the City Council members who appoint them. This meant we could not immediately appoint commissioners to enact our campaign goals.

This was especially important on the Planning Commission where 4 of the 7 members were inherently conflicted due to the fact that they were involved one way or another in development or real estate. Jane and I tried to get the rules changed but did not succeed so we were forced to wait until the existing terms expired. Ultimately, we were able to appoint some very good Commissioners, but they remain in the minority on many Planning Commission votes.

One very important change was made early on- Work sessions held before scheduled Council Meetings were conducted in the small room 204 adjacent to the Council Chamber. No minutes were kept which was in violation of sunshine laws, and City Council meeting agenda items were discussed although formal votes were not taken.

As a consequence very little substantive discussion of the agenda items took place during the formal Council meetings, and there was little citizen input. We new Council members requested that minutes of the work sessions be kept. This requirement was confirmed by the City Attorney, and Council relocated work sessions to the Council Chamber to facilitate keeping proper minutes. This important change has resulted in more openness in conducting City business, and encourages much more citizen input.

Now with an upgrade of our computer technology and a determination by City Council to keep citizens better informed, meeting minutes and audio recordings are available on the City website. www.aiken.net

With urging from Smart Growth members the Planning Commission agreed to do an update of the Comprehensive Land Use and Transportation Plan. A task force was formed in July 2001, and the Chairman estimated the update would take 4 months. It was finally approved by City Council on September 23^rd, 2002, nearly 18 months later!

A piece of good news was that City Council revised the purpose of the Plan from being "just a guideline" to say "The plan should be followed unless there is a public reason for not doing so, and the reason should be stated in any motion contrary to the Plan." A small but important victory for Smart Growth advocates!

Smart Growth had also proposed in the spring of 2001 that the City develop a traffic management ordinance requiring traffic studies before new projects are approved. Mayor Cavanaugh and the City Council agreed but it was not until April 2002 after Jane and I went on Council that a consultant was hired to study traffic needs and draft an ordinance.

In April 2003 the Council was briefed on the proposed ordinance which included transportation impact fees. However, Council immediately removed impact fees from the ordinance at the urging of the former Planning Commission Chairman and major commercial developer, along with the Chamber of Commerce, all of whom argued the fees would stifle growth and the sky would fall.

After much more delay, opposition and review, a further watered down version of the traffic management ordinance was finally approved in October 2004. While more is needed, this was a step in the right direction and I voted for the final product. Better a half a loaf than nothing at all.

Another initiative urged by Smart Growth members was an ordinance to control development and abandonment of "Big Boxes". Working with developers a much debated but good ordinance on design guidelines was implemented and though it does little to control growth it certainly improves the aesthetics.

Aiken’s Historic Preservation veterans had long advocated Design and Review standards to protect the downtown business district. This group, along with our City manager and his staff chose Randy Wilson, a well known architect who had developed very good standards for Columbia to do the same for Aiken. We now have Design and Review Standards for downtown Aiken construction, renovation and demolition and eventually we hope to have them for all of Aiken.

Another move in the right direction is the recent approval by Council of a policy to require that annexation, rezoning , and water and sewer requests exceeding 4 acres residential and 5 acres commercial to be submitted respectively as Planned Residential or Planned Commercial. This policy change has two benefits in that it gives developers more flexibility in land planning a project, and also gives the City control to see exactly what will be developed.

The Council should not micro-manage projects but proposed changes to the concept plan that affect the intent and character, the density or land use pattern, or something similar must be approved by Council.

During my tenure on city Council I have worked for the overall good of our community, especially in this period of rapid growth, and I have often been frustrated by the number of times it seems that development at any cost has won out over the long-term good for Aiken. But I believe that progress has been made and attitudes are changing.

For example not everyone knows that the City was first approached by Fine-Deering in their proposal for the Trolley Run Station/ Sage Mill projects. At that time, TIF financing was limited by state law to municipalities only. The practical effect of the proposal by Fine-Deering was that the City would pay for the infrastructure normally paid for by developers. To its credit the City Council declined the Fine-Deering TIF proposal. That was when Fine-Deering’s attorneys lobbied state legislators to pass an ordinance and override Governor Sanford’s veto to enable Counties to condemn open land to do TIFs. Fortunately County Council, after a large public outcry, also declined to extend such largess to a developer.

Though some of my comments might sound critical, I believe Aiken is and has been a well run city. The pro-development attitude that prevailed for the past decade or so is in some measure a result of predicted and actual SRS workforce reductions. The City Council holds the view that cities must grow or else they die, and members at that time feared the worst. As a consequence Council actively sought growth and even gave incentives to developers. They placed few controls on the scale or quality of a project, and little attention was paid to transportation and infrastructure needs.

But we are the victims of our own success, and the level of growth we have experienced could not have been anticipated. However the Sam’s Club debate and the steadily increasing traffic on Whiskey Road has dramatically raised awareness of citizens and Council members concerning need for strengthened policies and ordinances to manage Aiken’s growth. High on my list are the following:

IMPROVED ACCOUNTABILITY OF COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS-

Economic interest disclosures are required yearly from Council members and are available to the public. I believe the city should require them for members of boards and commissions.

I also recommend a change in by-laws to limit Committee Chairmen to 2 consecutive annual terms followed by a hiatus as the County does and as the Aiken Standard recently recommended for the School Board.  

I also believe that we should change members’ appointment terms to coincide with the terms of the appointing council person as is done in the County. Newly elected council members should be able to appoint their own representatives as soon as they take office to reflect the will of the voters.  

IMPACT FEES

The recent study done by Clemson and the Strom Thurmond Institute confirmed that anticipated growth in the City of Aiken will not pay for itself. There will be a 16% deficit that must be made up by increasing taxes or implementing some sort of impact fee.

We are far behind the curve on transportation needs. In current dollars, 35 Million dollars are needed over the next 7 to 10 years for transportation improvements to accommodate Aiken’s anticipated growth.

I have long supported impact fees as the appropriate method to pay for the excess costs of growth but I have come to realize that the City cannot implement such fees independent of the County. Because so much of the needed road improvements are in the County we must work together to solve the problems.

The Chamber of Commerce and developers are again opposing impact fees saying that they will stifle growth and they propose that a large part of the next round of penny sales tax be dedicated to growth related capital projects. This may be feasible for the future but we can’t afford to wait another five to seven years to obtain funds. We need them right now! If we fail to find ways to raise the funds so urgently needed to make the required traffic improvements we will have to consider limiting building permits in certain areas until the necessary improvements are made. In no case should current taxpayers be required to bear the cost of growth.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

We must strengthen our current ordinance. Most importantly we must enlarge the required traffic study area for new projects. Studies are currently limited to just one quarter mile for projects that will add up to 5,000 trips per day and one half mile for larger projects. Obviously a major project adds traffic to roads far beyond a half mile. The City traffic consultant is in the final stages of completing a traffic update and I feel certain that it will confirm what we already know. During rush hours we have already exceeded road capacity on parts of Whiskey Road, and other major roadways are nearing capacity.

Over the past five years I have learned that Aiken is a well run city. We are fortunate to have an excellent City Manager and a City Council that works well together even though we have substantive differences from time to time. Our issues are worked out in open debate and we benefit greatly from citizen’s input. Citizen’s involvement in the process is very important and it has increased considerably over the past several years. I urge everyone to stay involved.

In closing I believe that Smart Growth has been good for Aiken and from what I hear and read in our newspapers its ideas though scorned by some are now accepted by a majority of our citizens and our elected officials. We will continue to grow, but working together we can and will protect Aiken’s future.