Infrastructure Costs of Rural Residential Development

In low-density rural residential developments, a variety of infrastructure needs can increase public spending on the developments compared to established developments or higher density developments. Added costs include building and maintaining roads, extending sewer and water lines, increased expenditure on emergency services and building more schools.

According to a report conducted by the USDA Economic Research Service, the biggest problem for communities experiencing rural sprawl was the increased public spending responsibilities lacking a corresponding growth in their tax base. These communities suffered insufficient tax revenues to accommodate infrastructure and schools because of the “lag time” inherent between residential development and subsequent business development.

Emergency Services

A study conducted of three communities on the urban fringe of metro Chicago demonstrated that response time for emergency medical services in newer developments averaged 9.6 minutes while response time for the same agency to a city address was roughly 6 minutes, the nationally accepted response time.

The study discovered even larger discrepancies for police response times in these communities. While fire-fighting services response times are smaller, residences on the fringe still had longer waits. Longer response times eventually require adding more personnel and eventually constructing new facilities to meet public safety standards. According to the Sierra Club, Phoenix, the nation’s largest by area, has plans for 18 fire stations throughout its suburbs between 2018-2038 that will cost current and future taxpayers $14.7 million annually.

Sewer and Water Lines

Average cost pricing is used to price public sewer and water lines. As these lines are extended or branches from the main line are built, the county or municipality building the line is fiscally motivated to increase the amount of individual sewer hook-ups. Building the lines encourages growth, but the actual cost of construction can be expensive.

Developers and municipality/county governments share costs associated with connecting to the sewer and water infrastructure. How the costs are shared raises the biggest concerns. When government entities are required to assist with financing sewer and water infrastructure for new developments, the taxpayers ultimately help subsidize the developments.

Infrastructure and impact fees are common elements of homebuilding permitting process. For example, in Placerville, California developers pay fees for sewer connection, sewer capital improvements, water meters, water meter installation, water impact, fire impact, park development, and traffic impact. The type and amount of fees change from one community to the next, but when the fees fail to cover the costs of purchasing and installing infrastructure, the local taxpayer’s bear the burden.

Wells and septic tanks are common features of rural residential development. Furthermore, faulty septic systems can cause ground water contamination. Increased ground water contamination forces the development of water/sewer systems. For example, poorly constructed private septic systems force municipalities to pay for costly repairs.

Leapfrog School Development

Under California law, a school district board can, by a two-thirds vote, ignore zoning restrictions when selecting school sites. In some instances, classrooms are deliberately situated in agricultural areas to take advantage of lower land costs. The impact on agriculture and open space can be devastating. Not only do schools attract development of homes and increase land values, but they also impact the ability of producers to maintain their lands.

Once a school has moved into an agricultural area, surrounding farmers are often prohibited from fertilizing, plowing and spraying their crops because dust and particulate matter could float into the school zone. Traffic also impedes the rural character of the land and impedes the farmer’s ability to move large machinery. As community centers, development also follows schools situated in such a manner.

The City County Schools Partnership, a joint effort by the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and California School Boards Association, formed a task force to study the joint use of land and facilities. Founded in 1997, the Partnership was formed to promote development of policies to build and preserve communities through collaboration between cities, counties, schools, community-based nonprofit organizations, and business and civic leaders.

The City County Schools Partnership supports coordinated local planning and implementation of services, capital resources and funding for children, families, neighborhoods and communities. Two key efforts of the Partnership – encouraging economic development through joint use of facilities and resources and encouraging community-based planning and problem solving – could significantly help alter the leapfrog development of schools in rural areas.

Roads

Low-density residential development in rural areas leads to increased traffic and construction of new roads. In the American model of growth, congestion problems on rural two-lane roads lead to expansion and construction. New residents to rural areas also may place pressure on county entities to pave dirt roads.

Rural residency practically necessitates driving everywhere. A family living in an exurban setting is compelled to have and use multiple vehicles. Families need multiple cars in order to accomplish daily tasks and in the process tally numerous miles on rural roads. Choosing to live in a rural setting means the family is separated from its community by a greater distance. So whether trips to town are for school, work, errands or pleasure, the number of vehicle miles increases. Increasing the number of miles driven increases air pollution and decreases expendable income since more money is used on gasoline and vehicle maintenance.
A good indicator of rural residents living and commuting to urban centers is calculated by the U.S. Census tracking of workers 16 year and older who work outside their county of residence.

The greatest concentrations of out of county workers within the SOSA region are near the Sierra gateway cities: Fresno, Reno and Sacramento. Several counties within the SOSA region had nearly 40 percent of their workforce leaving their county of residence in 2000: Yuba (43.2 percent), Calaveras (40.6 percent), Placer (39 percent) and El Dorado (37.3 percent).

Commuting out-of-county is a daily occurrence for a growing amount of SOSA county residents. The following counties had at least 20 percent of its workforce driving elsewhere for work: Amador, Carson City, Douglas, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Nevada, Sierra and Tehama.

As people move to the fringe of development, they inevitably move further from their jobs, which leads to more congestion on the roads as their commute lengthens. Plus, the counties of residence for these workers inevitably lose large chunks of sales tax revenue when their residents shop near their place of employment.

Download data: Employed Outside County 1990 vs 2000

The federal government is in the business of road building, and surprisingly many of the roads are in rural areas. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, in 2000 nearly 77 percent of the 8.2 million lane miles of roads in the United States were located in rural areas, yet 61 percent of miles driven occur on urban roads. Looking at those numbers, the quick deduction is congestion occurs in urban areas, and it does.
But as the urban fringe transitions into exurban areas, 1.7-20 acres per housing unit, and rural areas, the road infrastructure was not engineered to handle large amounts of traffic. And expanding roads costs money.

In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized $173.1 billion for highways and $41 billion for transportation projects from 1998-2004. By utilizing TEA-21, a number of innovative programs were created to support and promote air quality protection, inter-modal systems, and bike and pedestrian facilities.

Re-authorized in 2005, TEA-21, also now referred to as TEA-3, is viewed by groups such as the Surface Transportation Policy Project as an excellent opportunity for state and local government officials to craft a multi-range of transportation options because of the flexibility of the federal funds.