5.9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

§ 13.06 GROWTH MANAGEMENT 13-37 construction.' Many cities utilize capital improvements program- ming for the financing and timing of infrastructure. Fewer cities systematically consider the land use and developmental impacts of decisions concerning facilities such as roads,sewage treatment facili- ties and sewer extensions.s [2] Capital Improvements Provision and Growth Management Capital improvements programming (CIP) decisions can be refe- renced to the comprehensive plan to assess potential sprawl-induc- ing impacts of facility decisions.'Local land development regulations may also be linked to capital improvements planning and program- ming! In this context,utility extension policies can ensure that ade- quate public facilities are currently available or planned to serve proposed development. However,the"holding out"doctrine would generally require a utility-based reason for extending, withholding, or mandating connection to water and sewer services.' A locality's capital improvements program embodies concerns that are a basis for utility extension policies. For example, a growth management program included a capital budget providing for the development of certain sewerage and drainage improvements • within six years, and a capital program which provided for the loca- tion and sequence of additional capital improvements for the 12 years following the life of the capital budget.9 The Maryland decision in District Land Corp. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commis- sion10 held that future construction of water and sewer lines would be bound by the current CIP.11 However, existing commitments to water and sewer service based on a prior Five-Year Sewerage Pro- 4 Localities generally follow a five-year programming process,with annual updat- ing for construction in progress.The annual capital improvements budget is separated from the capital outlay budget for the next fiscal year. The capital improvements program refers to the schedule for the succeeding four-year period,and is generally not considered binding for particular improvements in the specified year.So,supra N. 3, at 130. 5 Cetzels be Thurow,supra N. 1 at 2-3. 6 See generally Roberts,supra, 15-18. 7 See § 12.11(4),re: consistency of public works projects. See § 13.07[3],infra. 9 Golden v. Planning Bd. 285 N.E.2d at 294-95. 10 292 A.2d 695,699 (Md. 1972). 11 Id. at 702. (Release #25, 7/87) •