General Plan Financial Element

I wrote this for the RCS Newsletter in August, 2013, and it was published as The Missing Ingredient in State-Mandated General Plans in the ICMA Public Management magazine in March 2014. 

Timeline for Good Government Planning

1927 - State creates authority for (O.K. creates = requires) cities/counties to prepare a General Plan.

1955 - Circulation and Land Use Elements required.

1967 - Housing Element required.

1970 - Conservation/Open Space Element required.

1971 - Safety, Seismic Safety, Noise, and Scenic Highway elements required.

1984 - Seismic Safety Element is merged with Safety Element and Scenic Highway element is no longer required.

By adopting the abovementioned requirements, California entered the 20^th century and set new standards in terms of planning for the many needs of both its citizen and business community.   Zoning maps were drawn, circulation plans derived, safety needs including police, fire suppression/medic, storm drainage, flooding and earthquake preparedness were determined and disaster plans of all kinds were written based upon the unique issues facing each city.  Park standards and protection of open space was implemented. 

Life was great. As a citizen all you had to do was consult your City’s General Plan or one of its many specific Elements to see how great your services were going to be, or what they were going to be.

The following is to be read in your head in the booming voice of a development real estate salesperson or Foghorn Leghorn (which are pretty much the same in my head).

Life is going to be great I’m telling you! We’re planning for fire responses of no more than five minutes.  Not to be outdone, the Public Safety Element says we’re planning for police responses that would be in in less than three minutes.   With that “adopted” five acres of parkland per 1,000 resident’s standard in the Conservation/Open Space element, there will be a park on just about every corner.  Traffic?  Ha, I said Ha! That will never be a problem, because our Circulation Element says we are going to have a Level of Service “C” (LOS = C) circulation standard and you… will… never… have to sit at traffic light for more than a minute or two.  Rain storms?  Not to worry, we are never going to have a flooding problem because when our storm drainage collection system is designed for a ten year storm.

Yeah, it’s going to be great I tell you!  I say son, it’s gonna be great!

But wait a minute you might think, who’s going to pay for all this, and how are you going to afford to maintain it? I mean couldn’t this add a great deal to the City’s already underfunded depreciation program. [Insert a very long pause with blank stare here].

Pay for it?  [Again long pause] Oh, I say son, we’re not required to have a Financial Element.

OK, maybe it’s time to ask that “why not” question.  In my alter ego status (as “Development Impact Fee Man, or as I prefer the more understated “DIFMAN”), I am often faced with what I have to kindly identify as lofty but unrealistic goals.  They are unrealistic because the General Plan does not require identification of a substantive financial process or method for financially attaining those goals.  Not to be misunderstood, I know that the engineers could design a LOS C circulation system and twenty-year flood protection system.  Police Chiefs and Fire Chiefs could equip and staff for the three and five minute responses.  The recreation types could program five acres per 1,000 residents.

“Could” is the operative word, but for the annual revenues necessary to finance these (again, “kindly” stated) lofty but unrealistic service levels.  In defense of staff, I am often told that these Plan and Element references are nothing more than “targets” and are not to be taken seriously or at least they no longer do. They simply keep their eyes on the ball and try to provide the best service level that the limited annual revenues can offer.  It would be very frustrating to have a plan that you know you will never see executed.  On the other hand, there is a level of equanimity in the General Plan process as every city, either well-off or closer to Chapter 11, can each claim same very high standard!  I mean let’s admit that it is easier to identify a lofty target that we would all like to have, than to say this is best we can do.  It’s like promising the kids a month-long trip to Disneyworld when we only have a couple of Cleveland bus tokens in our pocket.

But all of that aside, perhaps it’s time to consider requiring a General Plan Financial Element that supports the attainment of the defined levels of service in the other required Elements, or in the alternative would make them more realistic.  It would require a level of pragmatism.  Most cities provide a very credible level of service in all of the services they provide, at the amount the citizenry is willing to pay for.   It might be nice for staff to have goals that are actually attainable.