GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2000 COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT

Local Growth Issues—

Federal Opportunities 

and Challenges

GAO/RCED-00-178

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Contents

Letter 5

Appendixes Appendix I: Survey Results for Cities 36

Appendix II: Survey Results for Counties 55

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 74

Appendix IV: Background 78

Appendix V: Communities’ Challenges 87

Appendix VI: State and Local Governments’ Approaches to

Planning For and Managing Growth 96

Appendix VII: The Influence of Federal Infrastructure Programs

on Local Growth 105

Appendix VIII:The Influence of Federal Community Reinvestment 

Programs on Local Growth 118

Appendix IX: The Influence of Federal Programs and Policies on 

Preserving Open Space and Farmland 133

Appendix X: Federal Policy Options 141

Appendix XI: Comments From the U.S. Department of

Agriculture 143

Appendix XII: Comments From the Environmental Protection

Agency 145

Appendix XIII:Comments From the General Services

Administration 149

Appendix XIV:Comments From the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development 152

Appendix XV: Comments from the Department of the Interior 156

Appendix XVI:GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 161

Tables Table 1: Ten Fastest-Growing States, 1995-2025 12

Table 2: Growth-Related Challenges Facing the Five Metropolitan Areas 

We Visited 88

Table 3: Significant State Planning Statute Reforms 98

Figures Figure 1: Communities’ Views on the Extent to Which “Sprawl” Is a 

Concern 8
Contents

Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 2: Communities’ Concerns About “Sprawl” Compared With Their 

Top Four Growth-Related Challenges 16

Figure 3: Communities’ Views on the Influence of the Federal and State 

Governments on Local Growth and Development 18

Figure 4: Communities’ Views on Whether Federal Transportation 

Programs Provide Enough Funding Flexibility to Pursue Transit 

and Alternative Transportation Projects 20

Figure 5: Communities’ Views on Whether Federal Programs Provide 

Enough Funding Flexibility to Pursue Infill Development 23

Figure 6: Change in Population and Developed Land Area in Five 

Urbanized Areas, 1960-90 79

Figure 7: Farmland Converted in Five Metropolitan Areas, 1982-97 80

Figure 8: Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled, 1960-95 81

Figure 9: Top Four Growth-Related Challenges Reported by Cities and 

Counties 89

Figure 10: Communities’ Top Four Growth-Related Challenges 92

Figure 11: Communities’ Top Priorities 93

Figure 12: Central Cities and Rural Counties’ Top Priorities 95

Figure 13: Communities’ Expected Future Involvement in Planning For and 

Managing Growth 100

Figure 14: Five Most Frequently Used Local Growth Management Tools 

101

Figure 15: Communities Assigning a High or Very High Priority to 

Enhancing Their Transportation System 106

Figure 16: Communities Ranking Federal Funding as Very Helpful in 

Planning For and Managing Growth 108

Figure 17: Federal Activities Cited Most Frequently as Underfunded 109

Figure 18: Communities’ Views on Whether Federal Design Standards for 

Roads and Bridges Provide Enough Flexibility 113

Figure 19: Extent to Which Cities Found Tax Benefits for Community 

Development Helpful 121

Figure 20: Impact of Concerns About Superfund Liability on Brownfield 

Redevelopment 125

Figure 21: Compliance With Federal Urban Relocation Policies Over the 

Last 5 Years 128

Figure 22: Impact of Federal Agencies’ Compliance With Urban Relocation 

Policy for Communities Reporting Poor or Very Poor Compliance 

129

Figure 23: Effect of Postal Relocations That Occurred Over the Last 5 Years 

131
Contents

Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 24: Impact of Federal Agencies' Compliance With the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act on Counties and Communities Concerned 

About Sprawl 137

Figure 25: Impact of Federal Estate Tax Change on Families Inheriting 

Farms 139

Figure 26: Federal Policy Options Most Often Strongly Supported by Local 

Communities 141

Figure 27: Other Federal Policy Options Strongly Supported by Local 

Communities 142

Abbreviations

CDBG Community Development Block Grant Program

DOT Department of Transportation

EDA Economic Development Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EZ/EC Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Program

FPP Farmland Protection Program

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GAO General Accounting Office

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

ISTEA Intemodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

IRS Internal Revenue Service

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

OMB Office of Management and Budget

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284989 Letr

September 6, 2000

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

The Honorable Carl Levin

United States Senate

The Honorable Bud Shuster

Chairman, Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

The Honorable Diana L. DeGette

House of Representatives

Faced with a projected 50-percent increase in the U.S. population in the 

next 50 years, communities across the nation must address the challenges 

of planning for and managing growth. State and local governments are 

balancing the need for sustainable economic growth with the need to 

maintain a quality of life, deliver key services, and confront fiscal 

constraints. Meanwhile, Americans are increasingly frustrated with traffic 

congestion, declining older neighborhoods, and the loss of open space. 

Each community has its own growth-related challenges and unique 

circumstances that affect its response to the pressures of growth. These 

pressures are forcing decisionmakers at all levels of government to 

improve development decisions and find better ways of delivering services 

and assisting communities.

Concerned about how federal programs and policies affect the ability of 

state and local governments to plan for and manage growth, you asked us 

to identify (1) growth-related challenges facing local communities, (2) tools 

and techniques that state and local governments are using to help plan for 

and manage growth in their communities, and (3) federal programs and 

policies that state and local governments believe serve as barriers or aids in 

their efforts to plan more effectively for and manage growth. To accomplish 

these objectives, we visited five metropolitan areas and surveyed nearly 

2,000 city and county governments—all U.S. cities with populations of 

more than 25,000 and all counties located within U.S. metropolitan areas. 

The rate of response to our survey was 81 percent. See appendixes I and II 

for the survey questions and the responses of cities and counties, 

respectively. Our survey results are available at 

www.gao.gov/special.pubs/lgi/. 
B-284989

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

This is our second report examining the influence of federal policies on 

patterns of growth. The first report, based primarily on an evaluation of 

published studies and other publicly available information, was issued in 

April 1999 and examined the link between federal programs and policies 

and “urban sprawl.”1

 This evaluation of state and local concerns and 

practices is based primarily on data we collected from state, regional, local, 

and federal officials. 

Results in Brief Across the nation, local communities are pursuing a variety of growthrelated strategies in response to a range of challenges and concerns. For 

example, Columbus, Ohio, is encouraging growth and economic 

development and is concerned about providing sufficient water and 

wastewater infrastructure to support this growth. In Atlanta, Georgia, 

where rapid population growth has led to serious traffic congestion and air 

quality problems, state and local decisionmakers are considering higher 

density development around established business and population centers 

and are planning for greater use of public transportation. Yet despite their 

concerns about growth-related challenges, local communities are placing a 

high value on economic development when planning for the future. Overall, 

infrastructure needs, traffic congestion, and the adequacy of their local tax 

base for supporting schools and services were the growth-related concerns 

most frequently cited by the cities and counties responding to our survey. 

When asked about their priorities in planning for the future, the greatest 

number of counties cited increasing their local tax base, attracting 

businesses, and enhancing transportation systems—mirroring their areas 

of highest concern. Cities cited similar planning priorities, but for them, 

revitalizing their downtown areas was more often a high or very high 

priority than enhancing transportation systems. 

1

Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on “Urban Sprawl” Is Unclear

(GAO/RCED-99-87, Apr. 30,1999).
B-284989

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Communities are also concerned about “sprawl”—development 

characterized by, among other things, low densities, rapid land 

consumption, and dependence on the automobile. Fifty-three percent of 

the counties and 35 percent of the cities responding to our survey said that 

“sprawl” was a high or very high concern, compared with 35 percent of the 

cities and 16 percent of the counties that said it was not a current concern 

or a low concern. Figure 1 shows the level of concern about “sprawl” 

reported by the communities we surveyed.2

2

The figure shows the views of all the metropolitan counties that responded to our survey. 

We did not survey counties in New England because they either have no county government 

or perform very limited functions (see app. III). We used data from the New England cities 

we surveyed to show the level of concern in that area. The map inset shows the responses of 

all cities in New England with populations over 25,000.
B-284989

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 1: Communities’ Views on the Extent to Which “Sprawl” Is a Concern 

Very high concern

High concern

Moderate concern

Low concern

Not a current concern

Uncertain, other, or no response
B-284989

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

In response to growth-related challenges and concerns, state and local 

governments are changing how they plan for and manage growth. 

According to the communities that responded to our survey, their 

involvement in planning for and managing growth is already high; 

nevertheless, 27 percent of the cities and 34 percent of the counties 

expected to increase their involvement over the next 5 years as a result of 

their concerns. States are updating planning laws, creating incentives for 

growth in designated areas, and setting aside funds to acquire and conserve 

open space. Increasingly, local governments are turning to innovative 

techniques—such as offering financial incentives to encourage 

development in designated areas, enacting zoning ordinances to reward 

developers for setting aside green space, or working with adjacent 

communities—to address growth-related challenges.

Compared with state and local governments, the federal government has a 

relatively small influence on local efforts to plan for and manage growth. 

However, the federal government plays an important role in, among other 

things, investing in the nation’s physical infrastructure, revitalizing its 

communities, and preserving its natural resources. Hence, it has 

opportunities to help America’s communities plan for the future, but 

challenges such as the following come with these opportunities:

• Infrastructure decisions are key to how communities grow, and the 

federal government can support state and local efforts to plan for and 

manage growth by helping communities make sound infrastructure 

investment decisions. In the view of local government officials, the 

federal government has opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of its 

substantial investment in communities’ infrastructure by encouraging 

(1) greater consistency between local land-use planning (establishing 

local land-use and development objectives) and transportation planning 

(the process for selecting and implementing highway and transit 

projects); and (2) greater consideration of the growth implications of 

federally funded infrastructure projects. In the Atlanta metropolitan 

area, for example, regional officials told us they did not do a good job of 

linking transportation projects to land-use plans in the past, but they 

recently have sought to do so in an effort to address long-standing air 

quality problems. In the Burlington metropolitan area, local officials 

expressed concern that federal and state officials did not consider 

growth implications when planning a highway project currently under 

development. Achieving greater consistency between local land-use 

planning and transportation planning and giving greater consideration 

to the growth implications of infrastructure projects would present 
B-284989

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

challenges. For example, it would entail additional efforts on the part of 

state and local governments, since many states do not require, and some 

localities do not have, land-use plans. 

• Many communities plan for and manage growth by, among other things, 

revitalizing distressed areas, encouraging commercial and residential 

development in their downtown areas, and pursuing projects that 

develop vacant or unused land in areas with existing infrastructure—

often referred to as “infill development.” Based on the views of local 

government officials, the federal government has opportunities to help 

local governments meet their community reinvestment goals by (1) 

reviewing the level of flexibility built into federal programs and (2) 

providing additional education and technical assistance for navigating 

the multitude of federal programs. For example, 57 percent of the cities 

responding to our survey believed that federal programs do not give 

them enough flexibility to pursue their infill development goals. While 

flexibility—or a lack thereof—can take many forms, one city manager 

told us that federal funding rules limit his city’s ability to use federal 

programs to provide affordable housing. In 1999, we reported that 

burdensome administrative processes discourage local communities 

from using federal programs to assess and clean up brownfields—

abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial sites.3

 The 

challenges in reviewing the level of flexibility built into federal programs 

include determining the appropriate balance between giving 

communities the decision-making authority they desire and ensuring 

that the programs will still meet the national purposes they were 

designed to accomplish.

• For many communities, preserving open space (parkland and 

environmentally sensitive lands) and farmland is integral to planning for 

and managing growth. Although the federal government manages land 

for national parks and forests, it plays a very limited role in the 

preservation activities most commonly undertaken by local 

governments. For example, the federal government has not established 

a general policy on the preservation of farmland. The only program 

designed to preserve farmland—the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Farmland Protection Program—is small and has not met its 

goals for preserving prime farmland. Opportunities exist for the federal 

3

Environmental Protection: Agencies Have Made Progress in Implementing the Federal 

Brownfield Partnership Initiative (GAO/RCED-99-86, Apr. 9, 1999).
B-284989

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

government to examine whether a more comprehensive federal 

farmland protection policy is warranted. Such an examination would 

need to consider the appropriate role of the federal government and the 

appropriate use of federal funding in these areas of state and local 

concern.

• Local communities support changes to the federal role that would 

improve coordination, according to our survey results. In our past work, 

we have offered several possible approaches for better managing 

crosscutting programs—such as improved coordination, integration, 

and consolidation—to ensure that crosscutting goals and program 

efforts are mutually reinforcing. Our assessment of the federal 

government’s 1999 Governmentwide Performance Plan, required by the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, encouraged federal 

agencies to strengthen their coordination of crosscutting programs.4

Since local communities interact with a multitude of federal agencies 

that affect localities’ infrastructure development, community 

revitalization, and preservation activities, opportunities exist for 

entering into formal interagency agreements and designating key federal 

agencies to address cross-cutting issues. This would strengthen 

coordination to address the growing demand that the federal 

government become more effective and less costly.

Background The nation faces a growing demand for residential, commercial, and 

industrial development in the years ahead. According to the Bureau of the 

Census, the population of the United States will increase by almost 50 

percent over the next 50 years. In California alone, the increase in 

population in a little over 30 years is expected to equal the current 

population of New York State. As indicated in table 1, the populations of 10 

states are projected to grow by at least 45 percent between 1995 and 2025.

4

The Results Act: Assessment of the Governmentwide Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 1999

(GAO/AIMD/GGD-98-159, Sept. 8, 1998).
B-284989

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Table 1: Ten Fastest-Growing States, 1995-2025

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Population increases mean greater demand for residential, commercial, 

and industrial development. For instance, the National Association of 

Home Builders predicts that home builders will have to supply between 1.3 

million and 1.5 million new homes per year throughout this decade.5

 At the 

same time, population increases can mean greater land consumption and 

traffic congestion—and their related costs. Historically, both land 

consumption and traffic have increased faster than population. For 

example, between 1970 and 1990, the U.S. population grew by 31 percent 

while the amount of developed land in metropolitan areas grew by 74 

percent and the number of vehicle miles traveled by Americans increased 

by 93 percent. During the same period, in the Atlanta metropolitan area, the 

amount of developed land increased by 164 percent and the population 

grew by 84 percent. By 1998, drivers in three large metropolitan areas6

—

Houston, Nashville, and Atlanta—were traveling over 35 miles a day—the 

highest number of daily vehicle miles traveled per capita in the country. 

Appendix IV contains additional information on the implications of 

increased growth and development.

State Projected change in population

California 56%

New Mexico 55%

Hawaii 53%

Arizona 52%

Nevada 51%

Idaho 50%

Utah 48%

Alaska 47%

Florida 46%

Texas 45%

5

Smart Growth: Building Better Places to Live, Work, and Play, National Association of 

Home Builders (Washington, D.C.: 1999).

6

Urbanized areas with more than 500,000 persons.
B-284989

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Traditionally, local governments play the major role in planning for and 

managing growth. The authority to regulate land uses resides with the 

states, but all 50 states have delegated basic land-use planning and zoning 

authority to local governments within their jurisdictions, making local 

governments primarily responsible for planning for and managing growth. 

These governments identify land available for development and determine 

how such land should be used. Local governments typically rely on landuse planning and zoning (designating what type of development—

commercial, residential, or industrial—is permitted on specific parcels of 

land) to plan for and manage growth. In addition to local governments, at 

least 45 states have regional governance structures—councils of 

governments, planning commissions, and development districts—that are 

involved in economic development, transportation, environmental, and 

housing activities, among others. The federal government plays an active 

role in local growth issues in communities where it has facilities or land 

holdings; however, it can also influence growth and development 

nationwide through its spending programs, regulations, taxes, and 

administrative actions.
B-284989

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Communities’ Challenges

Traffic congestion

Inadequate tax base

Aging infrastructure
B-284989

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Communities Are 

Concerned About 

Growth-Related 

Challenges

Though concerned about a variety of growth-related challenges, the 

communities responding to our survey most often cited the need for 

infrastructure—such as highway and water-sewer systems—as a high or 

very high concern. Of the counties responding to our survey, 75 percent 

told us that the need for new infrastructure was a high or very high 

concern—a far greater proportion than the 53 percent that identified traffic 

congestion and an inadequate local tax base for supporting schools and 

services—the second most frequently cited concerns. This high level of 

concern reflects both the magnitude of the infrastructure needs and the 

variety of challenges communities face. For example, two county 

administrators in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area told us they are 

concerned about the need for new infrastructure—one wants highway and 

water-sewer funds to support growth, and the other wants funding to 

support a transit system. The need for new infrastructure was also the 

growth-related challenge most frequently identified by communities 

concerned about “sprawl”—cited by 72 percent.7

 Cities with populations 

over 200,000 and rural counties also reported the need for new 

infrastructure more often than smaller cities and nonrural counties.8

Among cities, 61 percent viewed the need for new infrastructure as a high 

or very high concern, a proportion roughly equal to the percentage 

concerned about aging infrastructure and traffic congestion. About half of 

the cities and counties were concerned about an inadequate tax base; 

however, a higher proportion of rural counties—62 percent—were 

concerned about this issue. Fewer communities identified other 

challenges, such as overcrowded schools, a shortage of affordable housing, 

and air and water pollution, as high or very high concerns.

Larger cities and nonrural counties were more likely to be concerned about 

“sprawl” than smaller cities and rural counties. Whereas slightly over a 

third of the cities responding to our survey said that “sprawl” was a high or 

very high concern, 52 percent of the cities with populations over 200,000 

said that “sprawl” was a high or very high concern. A significant percentage 

of rural counties (44 percent) were concerned about “sprawl.” However, a 

greater percentage of nonrural counties (56 percent) said that “sprawl” was 

a high or very high concern. Communities concerned about “sprawl” have 

7

These were the communities that responded that “sprawl” was a high or very concern to 

them.

8

Rural counties are those counties within metropolitan areas that identified themselves as 

rural counties in our survey. 
B-284989

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

grown rapidly in the past and expect to grow more in the future. Sixty-six 

percent of these communities reported that growth and development over 

the last 10 years had occurred at a somewhat or very fast pace, compared 

with 46 percent of other communities. In addition, 41 percent of these 

communities expected their populations to increase greatly over the next 

10 years, compared with 23 percent of other communities. 

Among both counties and cities, high levels of concern about the need for 

new infrastructure were more prevalent than high levels of concern about 

“sprawl.” However, counties identified “sprawl” as a high concern about as 

often as they identified other areas as such, whereas cities identified 

“sprawl” as a high concern much less often. Figure 2 shows the extent to 

which cities and counties cited “sprawl” as a high concern compared with 

their other top concerns.

Figure 2: Communities’ Concerns About “Sprawl” Compared With Their Top Four 

Growth-Related Challenges 

0 10 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Need for new

infrastructure

Inadequate tax 

base for 

supporting 

schools 

and services

Traffic congestion

"Sprawl"

Aging 

infrastructure

Percent (high or very high concern)

Cities

Counties
B-284989

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix V describes the growth-related challenges reported by our survey 

respondents in more detail.

State and Local 

Governments Are 

Becoming More 

Involved in Responding 

to Growth-Related 

Challenges

Many states have made significant changes to their planning statutes since 

1985, though states generally vary in the level of planning guidance they 

provide to local governments. Although every state has granted basic 

planning and zoning authority to its local governments, only 15 states 

mandate planning at the local level; most make planning optional or 

conditional. Even when states mandate land-use plans, they may not 

enforce requirements for updating the plans or ensure that growth and 

development are consistent with the plans. For example, the governor of 

California reported in his 2000-2001 budget summary that many general 

land-use plans are no longer current and that the lack of compliance with 

planning requirements would allow unplanned growth and development to 

undermine communities’ quality of life. Some states are taking other 

measures to aid local governments in planning for and managing growth. 

For example, Maryland and Vermont have programs that target state funds 

to selected growth areas, while New Jersey recently issued $1 billion in 

bonds to fund the purchase of farmland and open space.

Although not all cities and counties have the same zoning authority, more 

than 90 percent of the cities and 70 percent of the counties responding to 

our survey reported using land-use plans and zoning authority to plan for 

and manage growth. Both cities and counties also most frequently 

identified these two traditional tools as the most useful in planning for and 

managing growth. However, some localities also reported using other more 

innovative tools. For example, some have used their zoning authority to 

allow mixed-use development, offered financial incentives to encourage 

development in designated areas, or worked through regional 

organizations to coordinate plans for infrastructure development with 

neighboring localities. Appendix VI includes more examples of the tools 

that state and local governments are using to plan for and manage growth.

Federal Programs Both 

Help and Hinder 

Efforts to Plan For and 

Manage Growth

According to the cities and counties responding to our survey, federal 

programs and policies both help and hinder their efforts to plan for and 

manage growth. While local government officials believe the federal 

government exercises less influence on growth decisions than the states, 

federal programs and policies can affect local growth decisions through 

programs for (1) the construction and maintenance of physical 
B-284989

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

infrastructure (e.g., highways, transit systems, and water and wastewater 

systems), (2) “infill development” and the revitalization of downtown and 

distressed areas, and (3) the preservation of open space and farmland. 

Many other federal programs and activities can influence local growth, but, 

as discussed in our scope and methodology section, we did not examine all 

issues related to local growth.

On average, about half of the cities and counties responding to our survey 

characterized the federal influence on growth and development as low, 

very low, or nonexistent, compared with 17 percent that said it was high or 

very high. Many of these latter communities are located in areas where the 

federal government owns substantial facilities or land. As figure 3 

indicates, communities reported that their state government had more 

influence than the federal government on growth and development.

Figure 3: Communities’ Views on the Influence of the Federal and State 

Governments on Local Growth and Development

Note: This figure excludes communities that selected “uncertain” or “other” in response to the 

questions (between 1 and 2 percent for each question). 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 100

Percent

Federal

government

State

government

High or very high

Average

Low, very low, or none
B-284989

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Infrastructure

Cities and counties use federal funding for transportation infrastructure to 

provide for mobility as well as economic growth and development. The 

federal government provides funding for highway and transit projects 

through grants, loans, and loan guarantees for capital development and 

improvements. The cities and counties we surveyed identified federal 

funding for building and expanding highways and bridges, more often than 

federal funding for any other purpose, as very helpful in their efforts to plan 

for and manage growth. Conversely, funding shortages for highway 

programs most often hindered the cities and counties we surveyed in 

planning for and managing growth. The communities concerned about 

“sprawl” agreed. Central cities, however, most often identified funding 

shortages for affordable housing and revitalizing distressed areas as 

hindering them in planning for and managing growth.

City and county officials believe that flexibility in the use of federal funds 

for transportation is important in planning for and managing growth 

because it allows communities to adapt funded activities to fit the state or 

local context. Flexibility is one of the goals of the federal transportation 

program authorizations enacted in 1991 and 1998. Communities were split 

in their responses on whether federal transportation programs afford them 

enough funding flexibility to pursue the types of projects they need, and 

communities did not express strong views about this issue. Consequently, a 

lack of flexibility did not emerge as a major barrier nationally. For example, 

the community development director of a city in Oregon said that the city is 

supporting a bus system and building bikeways and pedestrian trails with 

federal funds. Conversely, the planning director of a city in Texas told us he 

has been unable to secure enough funding for bicycle and pedestrian 

projects. Other officials told us that federal transportation programs did 
B-284989

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

not provide enough funding flexibility because they were concerned about 

the level of funding. Overall, cities were somewhat more likely than 

counties to report that they have the flexibility to pursue transit and 

alternative transportation projects (see fig. 4).

Figure 4: Communities’ Views on Whether Federal Transportation Programs Provide 

Enough Funding Flexibility to Pursue Transit and Alternative Transportation Projects

Note: The figure excludes communities that are not pursuing transportation alternatives.

State and local officials told us that federal programs would be more 

responsive to local needs if federal agencies ensured that transportation 

planning was consistent with local land-use plans and gave greater 

consideration to the growth implications of federally funded infrastructure 

projects. Fifty-three percent of the cities and 49 percent of the counties 

responding to our survey said they strongly support a federal requirement 

that road and highway projects be linked with local land-use plans, while 

fewer than 5 percent of the communities said they were opposed. Sixty-two 

percent of the communities concerned about “sprawl” strongly supported 

0

10

20

30

40

100

50

Cities Counties

Yes

No

Uncertain or other

Percent
B-284989

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

such a requirement. Some communities are already coordinating their 

transportation and land-use planning. In Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

example, local government officials chose to address air quality problems 

by examining the area’s growth patterns and creating a new long-range plan 

that linked transit and land-use needs. In the Burlington, Vermont, 

metropolitan area, local officials expressed concern that federal and state 

officials did not consider growth implications when planning a highway 

project currently under development in Chittenden County, Vermont. The 

environmental impact statement for the project mentions that the project 

will have growth implications and advises the affected communities to 

address them, but does not provide any further details. According to 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials, the environmental 

impact statement notes some of the land-use issues that will need to be 

addressed, and officials characterized these issues as the responsibility of 

state and local governments. Appendix VII provides additional information 

on how federal infrastructure programs both help and hinder efforts to plan 

for and manage growth.

Community Reinvestment

Cities and counties use federal funding to pursue community reinvestment 

activities such as “infill” development, affordable housing development, 

and brownfields redevelopment. While many federal programs are 

available to assist local governments in revitalizing their communities, the 

local and state officials we interviewed most frequently cited about seven 

programs as helpful to their revitalization efforts (see app. VIII). 

Additionally, apart from federal funding for infrastructure, federal funding 

for revitalizing distressed areas, providing affordable housing, and 
B-284989

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

assessing and cleaning up brownfield sites was identified most often by the 

cities and counties responding to our survey as very helpful in planning for 

and managing growth. Conversely, insufficient funding for revitalizing 

distressed areas and providing affordable housing was most often selected 

by the central cities responding to our survey as a hindrance in planning for 

and managing growth.

Despite the importance they attached to federal funding for community 

revitalization, the communities that responded to our survey reported a 

mismatch between their infill development needs and the federal 

government’s approaches to community development. Fifty-seven percent 

of the cities and 47 percent of the counties responding to our survey 

reported that federal programs have not given them enough funding 

flexibility to pursue infill development over the last 5 years (see fig. 5). 

Counties were more uncertain about whether federal programs gave them 

enough funding flexibility to pursue infill development. Of the counties 

pursuing infill development, 39 percent said they were uncertain about the 

level of federal funding flexibility. 
B-284989

Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 5: Communities’ Views on Whether Federal Programs Provide Enough 

Funding Flexibility to Pursue Infill Development

Note: This figure excludes the communities that reported they are not pursuing infill development.

The large number of federal programs that fund economic development 

activities and the large number of federal agencies that administer the 

programs can reduce communities’ flexibility in pursuing reinvestment 

projects. As we reported in December 1995, a lack of coordination among 

the agencies imposes a burden on local organizations that attempt to piece 

together funding from different programs to serve their communities.9

 The 

neighborhood organizations we studied found it burdensome to manage 

multiple programs with individual funding streams, application 

requirements, and reporting expectations. Local officials we interviewed 

also said that infill development programs such as the Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) program would be more flexible if 

9

Community Development: Comprehensive Approaches and Local Flexibility Issues

(GAO/T-RCED-96-53, Dec. 5, 1995).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

100

Cities Counties

Percent

Yes

Uncertain or other

No
B-284989

Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

communities could spend more of the funds on projects that do not directly 

benefit low- and moderate-income persons. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) officials noted that many infill development 

programs are among the most flexible in the federal government; 

increasing their flexibility further would only undermine the programs’ 

national goals, which are to target assistance to the areas of greatest need.

Sixty-seven percent of the central cities responding to our survey—and 49 

percent of the cities overall—said they were redeveloping brownfield sites. 

In 1996, we reported that potential liability under federal law for the 

cleanup of environmental contamination is a barrier to brownfield 

redevelopment because it can discourage the participation of lenders, 

developers, and owners.10 We have also reported that potential federal 

liability can help redevelopment by encouraging voluntary, rather than 

mandated, cleanup actions.11 No clear picture emerged from our survey 

about the extent to which concerns about liability have helped or hindered 

communities’ efforts to redevelop brownfield sites. Among the cities 

redeveloping brownfields, 31 percent said that potential federal liability 

had no impact on their efforts, 23 percent said that it hindered their efforts, 

and 26 percent said that it helped their efforts.

Many communities plan for and manage growth by encouraging 

commercial and residential development in their downtown areas. State, 

regional, and local officials discussed two ways the federal government can 

support their efforts—through tax incentives and relocation decisions. The 

local officials we interviewed said they used tax incentives to encourage 

affordable housing development, brownfields redevelopment, and 

development in downtown and distressed areas. Appendix VIII discusses 

federal tax incentives in more detail. State, regional, and local officials also 

told us that federal and postal facilities located in downtown areas 

contribute to the economic viability of downtown areas. The Rural 

Development Act of 1972, as amended, directs federal agencies to give first 

priority in the location of new offices and other facilities to rural areas. 

However, when agencies’ missions and program requirements call for 

location in urban areas, the agencies must comply with Executive Orders 

12072 and 13006. These orders require federal agencies making urban 

10Superfund: Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment (GAO/RCED-96-125, June 17, 1996).

11Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives to Encourage Cleanups

(GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr. 9, 1997).
B-284989

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

location decisions to give first consideration to central business areas and 

historic properties.

Communities were as often satisfied as dissatisfied with decisions about 

the location of federal and postal facilities. Nevertheless, about a third of 

the cities (34 percent) and counties (33 percent) and a majority of the rural 

counties (16 of 28 respondents) that responded to our survey and had 

experienced a postal relocation in the last 5 years said their ability to plan 

for and manage growth was negatively affected by that relocation decision. 

The U.S. Postal Service must meet stringent standards when it closes a post 

office; by law, it must hold public hearings and study the impact on the 

community and postal employees. However, according to the Postal 

Service, these provisions apply to permanent post office closures and do 

not apply when the Postal Service relocates a facility. In October 1998, the 

Postal Service promulgated new regulations to improve its coordination 

with communities on postal relocation issues. See appendix VIII for more 

information on this topic.

Preservation Activities

Although the federal government manages national parks and forests, the 

federal programs that help localities fund the preservation of farmland and 

open space are relatively small, and responsibility for them is dispersed 

among several federal agencies. The Department of the Interior, whose 

bureaus manage vast tracts of federal lands, offers several programs 

designed to help communities manage local growth issues in areas 

impacted by the presence of federal land. These programs include allowing 

localities to use public land to meet public needs and selling public land to 

communities to accommodate growth that is consistent with their land-use 

plans.
B-284989

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Many communities, especially noncentral cities and communities 

concerned about sprawl, assigned a high or very high priority to preserving 

parks and other open space, yet fewer communities reported using federal 

funding for acquiring and conserving open space, purchasing conservation 

easements for natural resources, or preserving farmland. The Farmland 

Protection Program—the one federal program we identified that funds the 

preservation of prime farmland—is small and has not met its goals. The 

1996 Farm Bill authorized $35 million for the program for 6 years, but these 

funds were fully expended by the end of 1998. Moreover, while the goal for 

the program was to preserve at least 170,000 acres of prime farmland, only 

74,800 acres on 350 farms had been protected through conservation 

easements by the end of 1998. Legislation has been proposed to increase 

federal funding for conservation activities. For example, in May 2000, the 

House approved the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000, which 

provides about $3 billion for open space acquisition and conservation 

activities. In June 2000, the President signed Public Law 106-224, which 

provided $10 million in new funding to the Farmland Protection Program.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider 

the potential adverse effects of federal programs on the preservation of 

farmland and to take alternative actions that could lessen the extent to 

which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Officials we interviewed 

during our site visits said the act was ineffective because it does not require 

agencies to select alternatives that lessen the impact of federal activities on 

farmland. As we reported in April 1999, USDA officials told us that the act 

is not enforceable because it offers no guidance for choosing a less 

damaging alternative and no incentives for doing so. Although USDA has 

acknowledged the need for more effective implementation, officials at the 

Department’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, which oversees the 

act’s implementation, told us they lack the resources to strengthen their 

oversight.

Most communities responding to our survey were either uncertain about 

the impact of a recent reduction in federal estate taxes on families that 

want to keep their farms or reported that the reduction had no impact. In 

1997, the Congress created an exclusion that lowered federal estate taxes 

for owners of qualified family-owned businesses, including family farms. 

According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, this exclusion should 

reduce the need for farmers to sell farm assets to pay federal estate taxes. 

When counties had an opinion on the effect of the reduction, more thought 

that it had encouraged, rather than discouraged, families that wanted to 
B-284989

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

keep the farms they inherited. Over one-quarter of the rural counties 

responding to our survey reported that the reduction had encouraged 

families to keep the farms they inherited. According to the administrator of 

a rural county in Illinois, local farmers are taking advantage of the revised 

estate tax policies and are keeping their farms. Appendix IX contains more 

information on federal preservation activities that influence local efforts to 

plan for and manage growth.

Local Communities 

Support Changes to the 

Federal Role

According to our survey results, local communities support changes to the 

federal role that would improve coordination, even though they are 

generally satisfied with the coordination between their community and the 

federal government. Forty-two percent of the responding cities and 36 

percent of the responding counties rated coordination between federal 

agencies and their governments as good or excellent. As expected, when 

communities reported that coordination was good, they said it helped them 

plan for and manage growth, whereas when they reported that 

coordination was poor, they said it hindered them. Our assessment of the 

federal government’s 1999 Governmentwide Performance Plan, required by 

the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, encouraged the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to consider strengthening 

coordination of crosscutting programs as one way to address the growing 

demand that the federal government become more effective and less 

costly.12 In our past work, we have offered several possible approaches for 

better managing crosscutting programs—such as improved coordination, 

integration, and consolidation—to ensure that crosscutting goals are 

consistent and program efforts are mutually reinforcing. Actions such as 

entering into interagency agreements and designating key federal agencies 

as primarily responsible for managing crosscutting growth-related issues 

could also facilitate localities’ interactions with the federal government 

when it has a role to play in their infrastructure development, community 

investment, or preservation activities.

The cities and counties that responded to our survey supported several 

changes in the federal role that would improve coordination and help from 

the federal government. Over a third of the cities and counties strongly 

supported an increase in federal incentives for communities to pursue 

regional solutions to managing growth. Some experts have suggested that 

12The Results Act: Assessment of the Governmentwide Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 

1999 (GAO/AIMD/GGD-98-159, Sept. 8, 1998).
B-284989

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

the federal government could encourage more regional solutions to 

problems by applying the regional metropolitan transportation planning 

approach to other federal program areas. For example, 33 percent of the 

responding cities and 47 percent of the responding counties strongly 

supported federal funding for regional water quality planning. In addition, 

over 40 percent of the responding cities and counties strongly supported 

increases in federal incentives for local governments to pursue “smart 

growth.” One federal program that provides “smart growth” incentives—

the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot 

program—is so popular that the demand for funding has exceeded the 

program’s appropriations. In fiscal year 2000, the Department of 

Transportation funded 84 projects. A total of 292 applications were 

received. The program funds projects that integrate transportation 

initiatives with the goals of community development, environmental 

protection, access to jobs and markets, and efficient land development 

patterns.

Twenty-nine percent of the cities and 37 percent of the counties responding 

to our survey also strongly supported more technical assistance from the 

federal government to help communities forecast growth patterns and the 

impact of development alternatives. One type of technical assistance that 

may be particularly helpful to local communities is geographic mapping. 

For instance, the mapping capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) can assist communities in identifying historic, current, and 

projected land-use patterns—information they could then use to forecast 

growth patterns, assess the impact of development alternatives, and 

identify land suited for preservation. USGS, along with other federal, state, 

and local officials, has created the Community/Federal Information 

Partnership to promote the widespread availability and use of federal 

geographic data for use in local planning. The Fish and Wildlife Service also 

maintains a National Wetlands Inventory that provides digital wetlands 

data viewable over the Internet. Appendix X provides more information on 

federal policy options supported by local communities.

Observations Growth is inevitable, given the projected increases in the nation’s 

population and the importance of economic development to America’s 

communities. And with growth will come challenges—traffic congestion, 

an increasing demand for services, and the consumption of land and 

natural resources to support development. The question for communities 

across the nation is not whether, but how, they will face growth and its 

challenges.
B-284989

Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Across the nation, city councils, county boards of supervisors, and state 

legislatures will make the decisions that most affect growth. State and local 

governments will also have the primary responsibility for meeting the 

upcoming growth-related challenges. Already, they have increased their 

involvement in planning and are using new tools and techniques to manage 

growth. Compared with state and local governments, the federal 

government plays a limited role in local growth issues. Nevertheless, the 

federal government influences local growth by investing in the nation’s 

physical infrastructure, revitalizing its communities, and preserving its 

natural resources. As a result, it has opportunities to help America’s 

communities plan for the future and meet their growth-related challenges. 

At the same time, the federal government faces the challenge of devising a 

flexible approach to local growth issues that responds to the unique needs 

of individual communities while meeting federal goals. Furthermore, given 

the different perspectives within each community on how to resolve its 

growth-related challenges and how to shape its future, reaching agreement 

on the most helpful levels and types of federal assistance may be difficult.

Investing in Infrastructure The federal government can assist states and localities in planning for and 

managing growth by helping them make sound infrastructure investment 

decisions. For communities of all types—central cities, small towns, 

growing suburban counties worried about “sprawl,” and rural 

communities—the need to build and repair infrastructure tops the list of 

growth-related challenges. The investment made in infrastructure today 

will shape the patterns of growth for decades to come. In the view of local 

communities, the federal government has the opportunity to enhance its 

investment in their infrastructure by encouraging greater consistency 

between local land-use planning and transportation planning and greater 

consideration of the growth implications of federally funded infrastructure 

projects. Greater attention to these factors could help minimize the 

potential for conflict between local and federal priorities, as well as the 

possibility of unintended consequences. Such attention could also help 

ensure that scarce federal resources are targeted to localities’ greatest 

needs and that federal infrastructure investments in one community do not 

exacerbate “sprawl” in another. 

However, encouraging greater consistency between local land-use planning 

and transportation planning and greater consideration of the growth 

implications of federally funded infrastructure projects could also pose 

challenges. Such consideration would have to be flexible enough to 

recognize that infrastructure projects invariably represent a compromise 
B-284989

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

among competing community interests. In reaching a compromise, state, 

regional, or federal interests sometimes take precedence over local 

concerns. In addition, greater consideration of these factors could entail 

further efforts on the part of state and local governments. For example, 

many states do not require, and some localities do not have, land-use plans.

Revitalizing Communities The federal government also has an important role in helping communities 

plan for and manage growth through the assistance it provides for 

community reinvestment. Many communities—especially cities—place a 

high priority on revitalizing their neighborhoods and developing their 

downtown areas. Based on the views of local communities, opportunities 

may exist for the federal government to provide more training and 

technical assistance to help localities make better use of federal economic 

development programs to support their infill and downtown development 

priorities. In addition, opportunities may exist for the federal government 

to reexamine the goals, structure, and content of federal community 

reinvestment programs to correct mismatches and find ways of enhancing 

the flexibility of these programs, thereby better suiting them to the 

development needs and priorities of diverse communities. The challenge in 

such a reexamination is to determine how much flexibility federal 

programs can give to communities while still meeting the national purposes 

they were designed to accomplish.

Opportunities may also exist for greater coordination between federal 

agencies and local communities when the federal government is a neighbor 

in a community. When the federal government coordinates well with 

communities, as it often does, it generally helps the communities plan for 

and manage growth. The Postal Service is a neighbor in virtually all of 

America’s communities, and many communities, including most rural ones 

responding to our survey, believe they were hurt by postal relocations over 

the last 5 years. It is too early to tell whether the Postal Service’s recent 

actions have improved coordination with communities. But if, over time, 

coordination does not improve, then additional action, such as the 

coordination procedures that govern the permanent closure of postal 

facilities, may be worth considering.

Preserving Open Space For many communities, both urban and rural, preserving open spaces, 

parklands, environmentally sensitive lands, and farmland is integral to 

planning for and managing growth. The federal government could play a 

greater role in such preservation activities by, for example, expanding the 
B-284989

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

education and technical assistance it provides to local communities 

through such resources as USGS’ mapping capabilities. Communities have 

responded favorably to such assistance in the past, but any expansion 

would involve a consideration of costs and of the appropriate role of the 

federal government in local land-use planning.

Based on the views of local officials, opportunities exist for the federal 

government to examine the need for greater federal leadership in the 

preservation and acquisition of farmland and open space. For example, the 

federal government could establish a general farmland protection policy to 

address the high priority that rural communites place on the preservation 

of farmland. Such a policy could potentially include refining the nation’s 

farmland preservation goals and developing a strategy for identifying and 

giving priority to preserving the highest at-risk farmland. Similarly, the 

federal government could provide more assistance to communities to aid in 

the acquisition of parkland and open space, which would address the high 

priority that cities and other communities place on the preservation of 

parkland. Legislation to provide more funding for the acquisition of open 

space has already been debated in the 106th Congress. Any examination of 

these issues would face challenges and need to consider existing budgetary 

priorities, as well as the appropriate use of federal funding and the 

appropriate role of the federal government in areas of state and local 

concern.

Improving Coordination Opportunities exist for federal agencies to improve their coordination with 

communities on local growth issues, thereby facilitating communities’ 

interactions with the multitude of federal offices, programs, and 

regulations that may affect localities’ infrastructure development, 

community revitalization, and preservation activities. Our past work has 

encouraged federal agencies to strengthen their coordination of 

crosscutting programs. Entering into formal interagency agreements and 

designating key federal agencies as primarily responsible for crosscutting 

growth related issues are two such opportunities. These actions could 

establish procedures and identify points of contact for local communities, 

potentially streamlining their dealings with the federal government. 

Designating key federal agencies could also establish responsibility for 

ongoing activities such as continuing to assess the needs and concerns of 

local communities, as we did in this report with our survey. Improving 

coordination poses challenges, given the wide array of federal programs 

and agencies that potentially affect local growth issues.
B-284989

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to seven federal agencies—the 

departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 

Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 

the General Services Administration (GSA); and the U.S. Postal Service—

that administer or oversee the programs and policies discussed in this 

report. All of the agencies generally agreed with the facts presented in the 

report. EPA, GSA, HUD, the Interior, and USDA provided letters 

commenting on the draft that appear in appendixes XI, XII, XIII, XIV, and 

XV of the report, along with our responses. Transportation and the Postal 

Service provided clarifying language and technical comments that we 

incorporated into the report as appropriate.

A number of agencies suggested that we add to the report more detailed 

discussions on certain issues. For example, EPA said that the report 

needed a more in-depth discussion of the close interrelationship between 

infrastructure, traffic congestion, and “sprawl,” as well as the relationship 

between land use, transportation, and air quality . Similarly, HUD suggested 

that we add more discussion about how infrastructure investment will 

guide development in the United States in the decades ahead, as well as 

additional discussion about balancing the need for new infrastructure with 

the need to maintain aging infrastructure. We agree that there are 

relationships among these issues that present some broader policy 

implications, but a further discussion of these relationships or implications 

was beyond the scope of our review. EPA, GSA, HUD, and the Interior 

suggested that we add more discussion on the assistance their agencies 

provide to local governments. In response to these comments, we added 

additional examples to the report.

EPA said that more discussion of the implications of surveying local 

government officials is needed because EPA is concerned that local 

officials’ views are limited to their areas of expertise. We acknowledge that 

local officials have less information about some federal issues than others. 

For example, as the survey results suggest, local officials are uncertain 

about the effects of some federal tax policies. Our approach was to identify 

the key players most responsible for planning for and managing growth in 

their communities and to survey that population to identify the growthrelated concerns and issues they face. We also obtained the views of 

regional and state officials during site visits to balance the views of local 

government officials. We made no changes to the report because we 

believe that we gave proper treatment to the implications of surveying local 

governments officials. 
B-284989

Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

EPA expressed the opinion that our report repeatedly asserts that the 

federal influence on development decisions, patterns, and growth 

management is small. On the contrary, our report acknowledges that the 

federal government influences local growth decisions through federal 

spending, taxation, and selected regulatory and administrative activities. 

However, we concluded from our work, including our survey, that the 

federal government’s influence on local growth issues is small when 

compared with the influence of state and local governments. We believe 

that we gave adequate balance to the nature of the federal influence; 

therefore, we made no changes to the report. 

HUD characterized the report as well balanced, reasoned, and factually 

based. In contrast to EPA’s position, HUD commended us for recognizing 

the relatively limited role of the federal government in local growth issues. 

HUD asked us to expand our discussion of balancing federal funding 

flexibility for community revitalization with the national goals of 

community revitalization programs. We revised the report to include HUD’s 

views.

According to the Interior, the draft report reflected sound work that would 

contribute to the issue at hand but overlooked some resources that the 

Interior makes available to communities. We acknowledge that the federal 

government, through its land management agencies, plays a major role in 

areas where the federal government owns large amounts of land, 

particularly in the western states. We added information on the types of 

assistance federal land management agencies provide when federal land 

management issues affect local growth.

Scope and 

Methodology

To determine how federal programs and policies affect the ability of state 

and local governments to plan for and manage growth, we surveyed the 

governments of nearly 2,000 U.S. cities and counties—all cities with 

populations of more than 25,000 and all counties within metropolitan areas 

as defined by OMB. Our response rate was 81 percent. We identified several 

subpopulations among the respondents. For example, among cities, we 

used OMB’s definition to identify and report the responses of “central 

cities”—those cities within larger metropolitan areas that meet certain 

population and employment characteristics established by the U.S. Bureau 

of the Census. The noncentral cities that we included are other cities within 

metropolitan areas, as well as some municipalities outside metropolitan 

areas. Among counties in metropolitan areas, around 27 percent of those 

responding defined themselves as rural; we therefore identified responses 
B-284989

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

for both rural and nonrural counties, including urban and suburban 

counties in the latter category. 

The results of our survey are available at www.gao.gov/special.pubs/lgi/. 

The site lists the topics covered by our survey and provides the responses 

given to each question by the cities and counties we surveyed. This site also 

provides responses for each of the subpopulations we identified (rural and 

nonrural counties; central and noncentral cities) as well as city and county 

responses for each state.

We also visited and interviewed officials in five metropolitan areas—

Albuquerque, New Mexico; Atlanta, Georgia; Burlington, Vermont; 

Columbus, Ohio; and Fresno, California. We selected these metropolitan 

areas to include a cross-section of areas in terms of size, location, number 

of political jurisdictions, variety of state and local growth-related tools and 

techniques used (including the level of “smart growth” activity), and 

potential federal issues. During each site visit, we interviewed state, 

regional, local, and community or business officials. We asked them about 

the growth challenges facing their communities, the tools and techniques 

they use to plan for and manage growth, the federal programs that help and 

hinder their efforts to plan for and manage growth, and the options they see 

for change in federal programs.

Our review focused on federal programs and policies that can affect local 

growth decisions through infrastructure investment, community 

reinvestment, and the preservation of open space and farmland. Although 

many other federal programs and activities can influence local growth, we 

did not examine all possible issues related to local growth. For instance, 

some argue that the federal government can, by enhancing the quality of 

inner-city schools, attract and retain families that have historically been 

more likely to move to suburban locations. We did not examine this issue. 

Similarly, a June 1999 report from the Clinton-Gore Administration cites 14 

crime and drug prevention programs or initiatives as tools for helping to 

build “livable communities.”13 We did not examine federal crime and drug 

prevention programs. Some also argue that growth and development 

endangers public safety when it occurs in formerly sparsely populated 

areas near pipelines carrying gasoline and other hazardous materials that 

were not expected to be near populated areas when they were built. We did 

not examine this issue. Finally, many tax policies can affect growth and 

13Building Livable Communities, A Report from the Clinton-Gore Administration, June 1999.
B-284989

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

development, such as the often-cited provision that allows homeowners to 

deduct their mortgage interest. Our scope included a limited number of tax 

provisions closely related to the community reinvestment activities of local 

governments. Our methodology is discussed in more detail in appendix III.

We performed our work from July 1999 through June 2000 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your offices, unless you announce its contents earlier, we 

plan no further distribution of this report until 5 days after the date of this 

letter. At that time, we will make copies available to others upon request. If 

you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

7631. Key contacts and contributors are listed in appendix XVI.

Stanley J. Czerwinski

Associate Director, Housing and 

Community Development Issues
Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities ApApenednxidexiIs

This appendix includes our survey questions and the responses of cities. 

See appendixes V and X for our analyses of the topics covered by questions 

4, 12, and 36. We did not use the responses to question 33 because the data 

were not sufficiently reliable. Instead, we used the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) definition of central cities to identify and report the 

responses of central cities.
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 44 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 45 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 46 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 47 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 48 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 49 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 50 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 51 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 52 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 53 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix I

Survey Results for Cities

Page 54 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Page 55 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties ApendxiI

This appendix includes our survey questions and the responses of counties 

in metropolitan areas. See appendixes V and X for our analyses of the 

topics covered by questions 4, 12, and 36. The only data we used from the 

responses to question 34 were those needed to calculate the percentage of 

counties that identified themselves as rural; the other data were not 

sufficiently reliable to report. 
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 56 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 57 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 58 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 59 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 60 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 61 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 62 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 63 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 64 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 65 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 66 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 67 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 68 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 69 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 70 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 71 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 72 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix II

Survey Results for Counties

Page 73 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Page 74 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiI

Concerned about how federal programs and policies influence local efforts 

to plan for and manage growth, Senators James Jeffords and Carl Levin, 

Representative Diana DeGette, and Chairman Bud Shuster, House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked us to identify (1) 

growth-related challenges facing local communities, (2) the tools and 

techniques that state and local governments are using to help plan for and 

manage growth in their communities, and (3) federal programs and policies 

that state and local governments believe serve as barriers or aids in their 

efforts to plan more effectively for and manage growth. To meet these 

objectives, we surveyed 1,926 local communities, visited five metropolitan 

areas, and reviewed publicly available information on growth issues.

Mail Survey We conducted a nationwide survey of 1,926 local communities—768 

counties located in metropolitan areas and 1,158 cities with populations 

over 25,000. Our survey was designed to obtain information on (1) growthrelated challenges facing local communities, (2) tools and techniques that 

state and local governments are using to help plan for and manage growth 

in their communities, and (3) federal programs and policies that state and 

local governments believe serve as barriers or aids in their efforts to plan 

for and manage growth. We used our previous work, interviews with state 

and local officials, and input from organizations that are interested in local 

growth issues to determine which topics to include in the survey. The 

organizations that we obtained input from included the American Planning 

Association, Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, National 

Association of Home Builders, Natural Resources Defense Council, Urban 

Land Institute, and White House Task Force on Livable Communities. We 

also obtained input from the National Association of Counties and U.S. 

Conference of Mayors, which represent local governments.

We pretested the questionnaire with city and county officials in the Detroit, 

San Diego, Chattanooga, and Washington, D.C., metropolitan areas. Each 

pretest consisted of a visit by GAO staff. During these visits, we simulated 

the actual survey experience by asking city or county officials to fill out the 

questionnaire. We interviewed local officials after they had completed the 

questionnaire to ensure that (1) the questions were readable and clear, (2) 

the terms used were precise, (3) the questionnaire did not place an undue 

burden on the agency officials completing it, and (4) the questionnaire was 

independent and unbiased.
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 75 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

To identify the counties located in metropolitan areas, we obtained the list 

of metropolitan areas, as of June 1999, published by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB).1

 From this list, we determined that 848 

counties are located in metropolitan areas. We eliminated 80 of these 

counties from our mailing list because they were (1) part of combined 

city/county governments that operated primarily as cities, (2) county areas 

with no county governments, or (3) counties that performed very limited 

functions. Many of the counties we eliminated were in New England, since 

the counties in several New England states—Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont—either have 

no county government or perform very limited functions.

To identify the cities with populations over 25,000, we used the Census of 

Governments, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1997. From 

this document, we determined that the total number of cities in the United 

States is 19,372. Of these, we determined that 1,158 had populations of 

25,000 or more.

When possible, we mailed the questionnaire to the top appointed official in 

the city or county, generally the city manager or county administrator. 

When we could not determine who served in that capacity, we mailed the 

questionnaire to the mayor or head of the county commission and asked to 

have the top appointed official in the jurisdiction complete the survey. To 

maximize the rate of response to our survey, we mailed a prenotification 

letter to all of the survey recipients about 1 week before we mailed the 

surveys. We also sent a reminder letter to nonrespondents about 3 weeks 

after mailing the initial survey and a replacement survey to those who had 

not responded after about 6 weeks.

About 81 percent of the local communities on our mailing list—949 cities 

and 609 counties—responded to the survey. To analyze the survey 

responses, we divided the cities and counties into several different groups. 

For example, we used OMB’s list of metropolitan areas to identify and 

report the responses of “central cities”—those cities within larger 

metropolitan areas that meet certain population and employment 

characteristics established by the Bureau of the Census. We also identified 

1

The Office of Management and Budget defines metropolitan areas following the official 

standards published in the Federal Register (55 FR 12154-12160) on March 30, 1990. 

Metropolitan areas comprise metropolitan statistical areas, consolidated metropolitan 

statistical areas, and primary metropolitan statistical areas.
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 76 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

the responses of noncentral cities—other cities within metropolitan areas, 

as well as some municipalities outside metropolitan areas. Of the counties 

in metropolitan areas responding to our survey, 27 percent defined 

themselves as rural counties; we, therefore, identified responses for both 

rural and nonrural counties—the latter category including urban and 

suburban counties.

The results of our survey are available at www.gao.gov/special.pubs/lgi/. 

The site lists the topics covered by our survey and provides the responses 

given to each question by the cities and counties we surveyed. This site also 

provides responses for each of the subpopulations we identified (rural and 

nonrural counties; central and noncentral cities) as well as the responses of 

cities and counties in each state.

Site Visits To obtain specific examples of how federal programs influence local efforts 

to plan for and manage growth, we visited five metropolitan areas—

Albuquerque, New Mexico; Atlanta, Georgia; Burlington, Vermont; 

Columbus, Ohio; and Fresno, California. We selected these metropolitan 

areas to include a cross-section of areas in terms of the size of the 

metropolitan area; number of political jurisdictions; level of smart growth 

activity; level of press attention; variety of tools and techniques used; and 

potential federal issues. 

During each of these site visits, we interviewed state, regional, local, and 

community or business officials. We asked them about the growth 

challenges facing their communities, the tools and techniques they use to 

plan for and manage growth, the federal programs that help and hinder 

their efforts to plan for and manage growth, and options for changes in 

federal programs. We obtained and reviewed documents describing the 

tools used to plan for and manage growth and the federal role in local 

growth issues.

Publicly Available 

Information

We reviewed data from the Bureau of the Census on the implications of 

metropolitan growth to obtain information on the challenges facing local 

governments. To obtain information on the tools that local governments are 

using to plan for and manage growth, we reviewed literature published by 

states, local governments, federal agencies, and interest groups such as 

issues of the Smart Growth News published by the Urban Land Institute. 

We focused on describing a variety of tools and techniques rather than 
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 77 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

providing an all-inclusive list of what local governments are doing to plan 

for and manage growth.

We conducted our work from July 1999 through June 2000 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 78 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix IV

Background ApendxiIV

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the population of the United 

States will increase by almost 50 percent over the next 50 years. This 

growth in population will increase the demand for development and pose 

certain challenges, including further land consumption and more traffic. 

Ultimately, where growth and development occurs is a result of consumer 

preferences, market forces, and public policies. Local governments play 

the lead role in planning for and managing growth. While the federal role is 

comparatively small, the federal government influences local growth 

decisions through spending programs, tax policies, regulatory activity, and 

administrative actions.

Population Projections 

Show That Growth Is 

Inevitable

Given current population projections for the United States, growth is 

inevitable. The Bureau of the Census has predicted a population increase of 

nearly 50 percent by 2050—from 273 million in 1999 to 404 million by 2050. 

In California alone, the population increase in a little over 30 years is 

expected to match the current population of New York State. See table 1 in 

the letter for projected population increases in 10 states.

Population Growth 

Brings Development 

and Challenges 

Population increases mean greater demand for residential, commercial, 

and industrial development. For instance, the National Association of 

Home Builders predicts that home builders will have to supply between 1.3 

million and 1.5 million new homes per year throughout this decade.1

 At the 

same time, population increases can mean greater land consumption and 

traffic congestion—and their related costs. Historically, both land 

consumption and traffic have increased faster than population.

Land Consumption In the United States as a whole, land consumption exceeded population 

growth between 1970 and 1990. Specifically, the amount of developed land 

in metropolitan areas grew by 74 percent, while the population grew by 31 

percent. Moreover, in one 15-year period, about 30 million acres of 

nonfederal land were developed, according to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA).2

 The same patterns of growth occurred in each of the 

1

Smart Growth: Building Better Places to Live, Work, and Play, National Association of 

Home Builders (Washington, D.C.: 1999).

2

According to preliminary data from the 1997 National Resources Inventory.
Appendix IV

Background

Page 79 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

five metropolitan areas we visited, as shown in figure 6. In the Atlanta, 

Georgia, urbanized area (the largest metropolitan area we visited), the 

amount of developed land increased by 366 percent between 1960 and 

1990, while the population grew by 181 percent during the same period. 

Similarly, in the Burlington, Vermont, urbanized area (the smallest 

metropolitan area we visited), the rate of land consumption was more than 

three times the rate of population growth between 1980 and 1990.

Figure 6: Change in Population and Developed Land Area in Five Urbanized Areas, 

1960-90

Note: The change in population and land area for the Burlington urbanized area occurred between 

1980 and 1990. Burlington did not become an urbanized area until 1980.

Source: GAO’s analysis of data from the Bureau of the Census.

According to USDA, most of the land developed for residential or 

commercial purposes between 1982 and 1997 had previously been 

Albuquerque

0

100

200

300

400

Atlanta

Burlington

Columbus

Fresno

Percent change

Population

Land area
Appendix IV

Background

Page 80 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

forestland or cropland. Although USDA does not consider urbanization a 

threat to food production nationally, it has stated that urbanization and 

development lead to the fragmentation of agricultural land and the loss of 

prime farmland. The American Farmland Trust reported in March 1997 that 

about 4.3 million acres of prime or unique farmland were converted to 

urban uses between 1982 and 1992. As shown in figure 7, a quarter of all the 

farmland in two of the metropolitan areas we visited—Atlanta and 

Burlington—was converted between 1982 and 1997.

Figure 7: Farmland Converted in Five Metropolitan Areas, 1982-97

Source: GAO’s analysis of data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Projected U.S. population increases mean that more land will be used for 

development. For example, according to the American Farmland Trust, 

projected population increases in California’s Central Valley—where the 

population is expected to triple by 2040—will put pressure on agricultural 

land. Low-density development is projected to consume more than 1 

million acres of Central Valley farmland by 2040.

0

10

20

40

100

30

Albuquerque

Atlanta

Burlington

Columbus

Fresno

Percent of farmland converted
Appendix IV

Background

Page 81 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Traffic Congestion While the population of the United States grew by 45 percent between 1960 

and 1995, the amount of driving Americans did increased by 237 percent 

during the same period. By 1998, drivers in the large metropolitan areas3

with the most daily vehicle miles traveled per capita—Houston, Nashville, 

and Atlanta—were traveling over 35 miles a day. Figure 8 illustrates the 

growth in U.S. vehicle miles traveled. 

Figure 8: Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled, 1960-95

Source: Highway Statistics Summary to 1995, Federal Highway Administration (1997).

3

Urbanized areas with more than 500,000 persons.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Years

Annual VMT traveled in thousands
Appendix IV

Background

Page 82 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Moreover, a study by the Texas Transportation Institute of changes in urban 

mobility between 1982 and 1997 showed that congestion levels and travel 

times increased substantially over time. In 1982, 65 percent of the peakperiod travel in the 68 urban areas studied was uncongested. By 1997, only 

36 percent of such travel in the same urban areas was uncongested. By 

1997, traffic congestion was such that drivers in 51 of the 68 urban areas 

studied spent at least half a work week (20 hours) every year stuck in 

traffic. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, drivers spent the equivalent of 

82 hours a year stuck in traffic.4

 Traffic will increase and traffic congestion 

may worsen as the nation’s population increases. The Department of 

Transportation projects that the average annual growth in vehicle miles 

traveled will be 2.35 percent in rural areas and 2.04 percent in urban areas 

between 1998 and 2017. 

Growth and 

Development Reflect 

Consumer Preferences, 

Market Forces, and 

Public Policies

Since 1970, the percentage of Americans living in metropolitan areas has 

increased, and most of that growth has occurred in the suburbs. Between 

1970 and 1990, the number of Americans living in metropolitan areas grew 

by 42 percent. As metropolitan areas have grown, the suburbs have grown 

faster than the central cities. The population of metropolitan areas outside 

central cities grew by 52 percent between 1970 and 1990, while the 

population within central cities grew by only 22 percent. Between 1990 and 

1998 alone, the population of metropolitan areas outside central cities grew 

by 12.5 percent, while the population inside central cities grew by just 3.9 

percent. In addition, suburban migration has resulted in the establishment 

of major employment centers outside traditional urban downtown business 

districts—the sometimes called “edge cities.”5

 Since 1980, the largest 

amount of commuter traffic in metropolitan areas has been from suburb to 

suburb. In 1990, nearly 39 million commuters traveled from suburb to 

suburb, more than twice the number commuting from the suburbs to the 

central city.

4

David Schrank and Tim Lomax, The 1999 Annual Mobility Report, Texas Transportation 

Institute, Texas A&M University (College Station, Tx: 1999).

5

Jel Garreau. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier, Doubleday (New York: 1991).
Appendix IV

Background

Page 83 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Survey results have indicated that Americans prefer to live in suburbs or 

outside metropolitan areas. Seventy percent of those responding to a 1997 

Fannie Mae survey said they would prefer to live in a suburb near a large 

city, a small town not near a city, or a rural area.6

 Only 9 percent of the 

respondents said they would prefer to live in a large city. Furthermore, 

when asked where they would consider buying a home, 70 percent said 

they would consider buying a home in a suburb near a large city; only 39 

percent said they would consider buying a home in the major city closest to 

their current residence. According to the Bureau of the Census, the rate of 

homeownership in central cities was 50 percent in 1997, compared with a 

rate of 73 percent for suburbs within metropolitan areas and 74 percent for 

localities outside of metropolitan areas.

Consumer demand and other market forces influence where new homes, 

stores, and office buildings are built. Recent new home building statistics 

indicate that most of the market for housing is on the fringe of metropolitan 

areas rather than in central cities and inner suburbs. Harvard University’s 

Joint Center for Housing Studies reported that most of the home building 

activity that took place between 1990 and 1997 occurred in medium- and 

lower-density counties on the fringe of metropolitan areas or right outside 

metropolitan areas.7

 Developers choose locations on the outskirts of 

metropolitan areas for several reasons, most related to the fact that 

building on the outskirts of a metropolitan area is usually cheaper and 

easier than building in cities. As noted by the Vermont Forum on Sprawl,

• land costs tend to be lower, 

• property title problems are less of a concern,

• permitting is less complex and time-consuming,

• land-use and building zoning may be less restrictive,

• site preparation is simpler,

• construction is simpler,

• suburban buildings can be bigger, and 

• parking space is ample.

6

National Housing Survey, Fannie Mae, (Washington, D.C.: Fannie Mae, 1997).

7

The State of the Nation’s Housing: 1999, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Graduate School 

of Design, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.: 

1999).
Appendix IV

Background

Page 84 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Finally, public policies interact with consumer preferences and market 

forces to influence how communities grow and develop. State and local 

governments are primarily responsible for land-use decisions. They plan 

for and manage growth through a variety of tools and techniques ranging 

from legislation to land-use ordinances and funding and tax incentives 

(discussed in the following section and in app. VI). The federal government 

influences local growth through various programs and policies; however, as 

we reported in April 1999, little quantitative evidence exists to support the 

extent to which this is so, and the level of federal influence on growth and 

“urban sprawl” is difficult to determine.8

While growth and development are essential to the economic viability of 

communities, some local governments are questioning the costs, discussed 

earlier, of development activity occurring farther from metropolitan cores 

instead of in central cities and the established communities surrounding 

them. As a result, local governments are increasingly pursuing “smart 

growth.” “Smart growth” seeks to encourage more compact growth in 

metropolitan areas and to make urban living more appealing to their 

residents by making connections between development, quality of life, 

resources, and needs. While smart growth manifests itself in different ways 

in different communities, in general, smart growth efforts include (1) 

transit- and pedestrian-oriented development, (2) development that fills in 

vacant or underused land in existing cities—often called “infill 

development,” and (3) preserving agricultural and environmentally 

sensitive lands. The Smart Growth Network, a coalition of public sector, 

private sector, and non-profit organizations, which encourages 

environmentally and fiscally responsible development decisions, has 

developed the following principles of “smart growth”:

• mixing land uses;

• taking advantage of compact building design;

• creating housing opportunities and choices for a range of household 

types, family sizes, and incomes;

• creating walkable neighborhoods;

• fostering distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of 

place;

• preserving open space, farmland, natural beauty, historic buildings and 

critical environmental areas;

8

Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on “Urban Sprawl” Is Unclear

(GAO/RCED-99-87, Apr. 30, 1999).
Appendix IV

Background

Page 85 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

• reinvesting in and strengthening existing communities and achieving 

more balanced regional development;

• providing a variety of transportation choices;

• making development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective; and

• encouraging citizens’ and stakeholders’ participation in development 

decisions.

A January 1999 study of growth-related ballot measures put to the vote on 

Election Day 1998 identified 240 state and local measures related to 

conservation, parklands, and smarter growth.9

 The measures proposed 

funding for land acquisition and the restoration of habitat for endangered 

species, funding for trails and greenways linking cities and rural areas, and 

funding for the renovation of facilities in older cities. The voters approved 

72 percent of these measures, which will provide more than $7.5 billion in 

additional state and local conservation spending. 

State, Regional, Local, 

and Federal Roles in 

Planning For and 

Managing Growth

Traditionally, state and local governments have played the major role in 

planning for and managing growth. The states have inherent powers to 

regulate land use, although they generally delegate certain authorities, 

including zoning, to local governments. Each state has passed some form of 

planning legislation. These planning laws tend to include, at a minimum, 

requirements that local governments, when preparing plans, include 

policies on land use, transportation, community facilities, and 

agriculture/open space. Although all states have some form of planning 

legislation, they vary in the degree to which they influence local efforts to 

plan for and manage growth. For instance, only 15 states require local 

governments to prepare land-use plans.

At least 45 states have regional governance structures, in the form of 

councils of governments, planning commissions, and development 

districts. These regional organizations are public entities, established by 

two or more independent local governments to plan, coordinate, and/or 

deliver services on behalf of their states or local government members. 

Regional organizations are involved in economic development, 

transportation, environmental, and housing activities, among others. For 

example, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

9

Phyllis Myers, Livability at the Ballot Box: State and Local Referenda on Parks, 

Conservation, and Smarter Growth, Election Day 1998, Brookings Institute on Urban and 

Metropolitan Policy (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1999).
Appendix IV

Background

Page 86 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

(ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 

authorized metropolitan planning organizations—for metropolitan areas 

with populations over 50,000—to do planning and set priorities for 

spending federal transportation funding. 

The primary responsibility for planning for and managing growth lies with 

local governments. As the entities principally responsible for land-use 

planning, local governments project land-use needs, identify available land 

for development, determine how land identified for development should be 

used, decide what infrastructure is needed to facilitate development, and 

establish the criteria used to evaluate development proposals. Local 

governments also, in some cases, manage growth—that is, guide the 

location and timing of development.

Compared with state and local governments, the federal government plays 

a limited role in planning for and managing local growth. In communities 

where the federal government has facilities or owns land, its influence may 

be substantial. In most communities, though, the federal government 

affects local growth decisions indirectly, through its spending programs, 

tax policies, regulatory activity, and administrative actions, as the following 

examples show:

• The federal government provides funding for transportation, water, and 

sewer systems and funding for revitalizing distressed areas. These 

spending programs can increase economic activity and facilitate 

development.

• Federal tax laws can influence where businesses decide to locate, what 

size homes people buy, and whether persons inheriting family farms can 

afford to keep them. 

• Federal regulations establish air and water quality standards and require 

assessments of the environmental impact of planned major federally 

funded projects.

• Federal administrative actions affect where federal agencies and postal 

facilities are located. For example, the federal government requires its 

agencies to give first consideration to central business areas when 

making urban location decisions.
Page 87 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges ApendxiV

Diverse communities face a variety of growth-related challenges, including 

the need for economic development, loss of farmland, air pollution, and a 

scarcity of water resources. For instance, officials in the Fresno and 

Columbus metropolitan areas are concerned about preserving prime 

agricultural land while officials in the Atlanta region are concerned about 

air quality problems. According to our survey results, the need for new 

infrastructure, aging infrastructure, traffic congestion, and an inadequate 

tax base for supporting schools and services are the top growth-related 

challenges facing both cities and counties across the United States. While 

many of the communities that responded to our survey were concerned 

about “sprawl,” a greater percentage of larger cities and nonrural counties 

were concerned about “sprawl” than other communities.

Local Communities 

Face Diverse GrowthRelated Challenges

Diverse communities face a variety of growth-related challenges. While 

many communities are concerned about economic development, attracting 

businesses and jobs is a greater challenge for central cities and rural 

communities. Finding ways to cover the cost of new infrastructure is a 

challenge for suburban cities. Many large urban areas are dealing with 

traffic congestion and air quality problems, while rural areas are trying to 

maintain prime agricultural land. Communities in fast-growing states such 

as California face different challenges from those in states such as West 

Virginia, whose population is expected to increase by less than 1 percent 

between 1995 and 2025. Information we obtained during visits to five 

metropolitan areas—Albuquerque, New Mexico; Atlanta, Georgia; 

Burlington, Vermont; Columbus, Ohio; and Fresno, California—illustrates 

the variety of growth-related challenges that local communities face. For 

instance, the challenges facing a large urban area such as Atlanta are very 

different from those encountered in a predominantly rural area such as 

Burlington. Table 2 outlines some of the growth-related challenges facing 

the metropolitan areas we visited.
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 88 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Table 2: Growth-Related Challenges Facing the Five Metropolitan Areas We Visited

The Top GrowthRelated Challenges 

Reported by Local 

Communities Are 

Infrastructure Needs 

and Traffic Congestion

The cities and counties responding to our survey most often cited the need 

for new infrastructure, aging infrastructure, traffic congestion, and an 

inadequate tax base for supporting schools and services as high or very 

high concerns. Other challenges, such as overcrowded schools, a shortage 

of affordable housing, and air and water pollution, were identified as high 

or very high concerns by fewer communities. Although cities and counties 

as a whole identified the same top four growth-related challenges (see fig. 

9), there were some differences between the challenges of larger and 

smaller cities, central and noncentral cities, and rural and nonrural 

counties. 

Metropolitan area Growth-related challenges

Albuquerque, New Mexico Providing enough water to support growth

Conducting land-use planning in an area surrounded 

on three sides by federal and tribal land

Atlanta, Georgia Addressing an average daily commute that is among 

the highest in the nation

Improving air quality in an area where ozone pollution 

exceeds the Clean Air Act Standard

Burlington, Vermont Maintaining the area’s rural character

Maintaining traditional downtown centers and villages

Columbus, Ohio Preserving farmland

Providing the water-sewer infrastructure needed to 

support growth

Fresno, California Preserving prime agricultural land in the metropolitan 

area—which includes the highest-producing 

agricultural county in the nation

Maintaining an adequate water supply
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 89 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 9: Top Four Growth-Related Challenges Reported by Cities and Counties

The challenge that was a high or very high concern to the greatest 

percentage of responding cities and counties was the need for new 

infrastructure. Sixty-one percent of the cities reported that it was a high or 

very high concern. An even greater percentage of the cities with 

populations of 200,000 or more (75 percent) reported that the need for new 

infrastructure was a high or very high concern. While the need for new 

infrastructure was a high or very high concern for 75 percent of the 

counties, it was slightly more of an issue for the counties that identified 

themselves as rural (79 percent).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

90

100

80

Percent (high or very high concern)

Need for new

 infrastructure

 Aging 

infrastructure

 Traffic 

congestion

Inadequate 

 tax base for 

 supporting 

 schools and 

 services

Cities

Counties
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 90 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

As shown in figure 9, many cities and counties also reported that aging 

infrastructure was a high or very high concern in their communities. Once 

again, the percentage of cities with populations over 200,000 that reported 

it was a high or very high concern (73 percent) was greater than the 

percentage of cities with populations of less than 200,000 (59 percent). 

Two-thirds of the central cities also reported that aging infrastructure was a 

high or very high concern, compared with 55 percent of the noncentral 

cities. The percentage of rural counties that reported aging infrastructure 

was a high or very high concern (55 percent) was higher than the 

percentage of nonrural counties (46 percent).

Although about half of the responding cities and counties reported that an 

inadequate tax base for supporting schools and services was a high or very 

high concern, a greater percentage of the larger cities, central cities, and 

rural counties were concerned about an inadequate tax base. Fifty-eight 

percent of the cities with populations over 200,000 reported that an 

inadequate tax base was a high or very high concern, compared with 47 

percent of the cities with populations below 200,000. In addition, 54 

percent of the central cities reported it as a high or very high concern, 

compared with 43 percent of the noncentral cities. Sixty-two percent of the 

rural counties and 49 percent of the nonrural counties reported that an 

inadequate tax base was a high or very high concern. 

Over half of the cities (59 percent) and counties (53 percent) responding to 

our survey reported that traffic congestion was a high or very high concern. 

While about the same percentage of cities with populations above and 

below 200,000 reported it as a concern, 65 percent of the noncentral 

cities—compared with 52 percent of the central cities—reported it as a 

high or very high concern. It was also a far greater concern for nonrural 

counties (61 percent) than for rural counties (32 percent).

Communities Are Also 

Concerned About 

“Sprawl”

Growth has led many communities to be concerned about “sprawl.” While 

the definition of “sprawl” is in the eye of the beholder, in surveying local 

communities, we indicated that various definitions exist, including the 

following: (1) low-density development; (2) development requiring 

dependence on the automobile; (3) segregated land uses (e.g., commercial, 

industrial, or residential); (4) large distances and poor access between 

housing, jobs, and schools; (5) consumption of land occurring at a faster 

rate than population growth; and (6) consumption of agricultural and/or 

environmentally sensitive lands.
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 91 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

When asked about the extent to which “sprawl” is a concern in their 

communities,

• 53 percent of the counties and 35 percent of the cities responding to our 

survey said that “sprawl” was a high or very high concern, 

• 31 percent of the counties and 29 percent of the cities said that “sprawl” 

was a moderate concern, and 

• 16 percent of the counties and 35 percent of the cities said that “sprawl” 

was not a current concern or a low concern. 

Larger cities and nonrural counties were more likely to be concerned about 

“sprawl” than smaller cities or rural counties. While a third of the cities 

overall said that “sprawl” was a high or very high concern in their 

communities, 52 percent of the cities with populations over 200,000 said 

that “sprawl” was a high or very high concern. A significant percentage of 

the counties that characterized themselves as rural (44 percent) were 

concerned about “sprawl.” However, a greater percentage of counties that 

characterized themselves as other than rural (56 percent) said that “sprawl” 

was a high or very high concern.

Communities expressing high or very high levels of concern about 

“sprawl”—hereafter referred to as communities concerned about 

“sprawl”—have grown rapidly in the past and expect to grow more in the 

future. About 66 percent of these communities reported that growth and 

development over the last 10 years had occurred at a somewhat or very fast 

pace, compared with about 46 percent of other communities. About 34 

percent of the communities concerned about “sprawl” characterized the 

pace of growth and development over the last 10 years as very fast. In 

addition, 41 percent of these communities expected their populations to 

increase greatly over the next 10 years, compared with 23 percent of other 

communities. 

Knowing that communities concerned about “sprawl” have grown rapidly 

in the past and expect to grow more in the future, we compared their top 

growth-related challenges with those of cities and counties as a whole (see 

fig. 10). While the top four challenges were the same for the three groups, 

the percentage of communities concerned about “sprawl” that identified 

traffic congestion and an inadequate tax base for supporting schools and 

services as a high or very high concern was greater than the percentages of 

cities and counties as a whole.
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 92 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 10: Communities’ Top Four Growth-Related Challenges

Local Planning 

Priorities Reflect the 

Challenges Facing 

Communities

According to our survey results, the priorities that local communities give 

to certain goals when planning for the future reflect the challenges they are 

facing. Different communities have different planning priorities; 

nevertheless, according to our survey results, the priorities most frequently 

cited by communities were related to economic development. As shown in 

figure 11, the top priorities—based on the goals that the largest number of 

communities reported as a high or very high priority—were attracting 

businesses to their communities, increasing their tax base to support better 

schools and roads, revitalizing their downtown centers, enhancing their 

transportation systems, and attracting new development to areas that 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Need for new 

 infrastructure

 Aging 

 infrastructure

 Traffic 

congestion

Inadequate 

 tax base for 

 supporting 

 schools 

 and services

Percent (high or very high concern)

Cities

Counties

Communities concerned about sprawl
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 93 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

already have the necessary infrastructure. Other goals, such as improving 

the environment and protecting property rights, were identified by fewer 

communities as a high or very high priority, even though at least threequarters of the responding communities reported that 8 of the 10 items we 

asked about were at least a moderate priority.

Figure 11: Communities’ Top Priorities

These top priorities mirror the top challenges reported by the responding 

communities (the need for new infrastructure, aging infrastructure, traffic 

congestion, and an inadequate tax base for supporting schools and 

services), though the survey responses showed that planning priorities 

differed among different types of communities. Attracting businesses was a 

high to very high priority for the greatest number of cities (83 percent) and 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 Attract 

businesses

 Increase 

 tax base

 to support 

better schools 

 and roads

 Revitalize

 downtown 

 centers

 Enhance

transportation

 system

 Attract new

development to

 areas with

 infrastructure

Percent (high or very high priority)

Cities

Counties

Communities concerned about sprawl
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 94 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

counties (72 percent), and, as shown in figure 12, it was also a high or very 

high priority for 86 percent of the central cities. Revitalizing their 

downtown centers was also a high or very high priority for 83 percent of 

the central cities, over half of which (54 percent) also reported that the 

decline of their downtown centers was a high or very high concern. 

Another top priority for central cities (75 percent) and rural counties (72 

percent) was increasing job opportunities for residents, though this did not 

emerge as a top priority among cities and counties as a whole. A lack of job 

opportunities was also among the challenges reported by the greatest 

number of rural counties. Unlike other respondents, nonrural counties 

most frequently cited enhancing their transportation systems as a high or 

very high planning priority, consistent with their identification of traffic 

congestion and the need for new infrastructure as among their top 

challenges. 
Appendix V

Communities’ Challenges

Page 95 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 12: Central Cities and Rural Counties’ Top Priorities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

 Attract 

businesses

 Increase 

 tax base

 to support 

better schools 

 and roads

Increase job

opportunities 

 for residents

 Attract new

development to

 areas with

 infrastructure

 Enhance

transportation

 system

Percent (high or very high priority)

Central cities

Noncentral cities

Rural counties

Nonrural counties
Page 96 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth ApendxiVI

In response to growth-related challenges, state and local governments are 

changing how they plan for and manage growth. Many states have updated 

their planning laws and enacted legislation to help localities address their 

growth-related issues. In addition, the vast majority of local governments 

we surveyed expect to be highly involved in planning for and managing 

future growth issues. The local governments responding to our survey 

reported using such traditional tools as land-use plans and zoning authority, 

as well as other innovative techniques, to manage growth. For example, 

local governments have used their zoning authority to allow mixed-use 

development, offered financial incentives to encourage development in 

designated areas, and worked through regional organizations to coordinate 

plans for infrastructure development with neighboring localities. 

Few States Mandate 

Local Planning

While the authority to regulate land use resides with the states, all 50 states 

have delegated basic land-use planning and zoning authority to local 

governments within their jurisdiction. According to the American Planning 

Association, the authorities delegated to localities by state lawmakers 

influence the extent to which local governments are able to respond to the 

pressures of new growth. Only 15 states mandate local land-use planning 

while another 25 states make such planning “conditionally mandatory” 

(e.g., if a local government chooses to form a planning commission, then it 

must create a land-use plan). Ten states make such planning optional. Even 

though most states do not require local land-use planning, almost all 

require or recommend certain elements for local governments to consider 

when creating plans. These elements vary in number and kind from state to 

state. For example, nearly all states require local governments to consider 

transportation needs in their plans, yet only half require them to consider 

housing needs, and fewer than a third require them to consider historic 

preservation, economic development, or the protection of critical and 

sensitive areas. According to the American Planning Association, three 

states mandate and three states conditionally mandate local governments 

to include urban growth limits—an official boundary or line that separates 

an urban area from surrounding open space—in their land-use plans.1

 For 

example, Tennessee requires its municipalities to create growth plans with 

urban growth boundaries for cities in order to be eligible for certain state 

and federal funding. Perhaps in part because most states establish at least 

1

Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington mandate that local governments include urban growth 

limits as an element of their land-use plans, while Arizona, Maine, and Maryland 

conditionally mandate urban growth limits as a plan element.
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 97 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

some recommended elements for local land-use plans, a third of the cities 

and counties responding to our survey reported that their state government 

has a high to very high influence on their growth and development. 

Even when states mandate land-use plans, they may not enforce, and local 

governments may not follow, requirements for updating the plans or 

making them consistent with statewide goals. A recent California study 

found that many localities’ general plans are no longer current, as required 

by state law. For example, 301 cities and 37 counties—or 65 percent of the 

localities within the state—have not updated the housing element of their 

general plan in the last 5 years, and 227 cities and 38 counties (51 percent) 

have not updated at least one element of their general plan. In his 2000-2001 

budget statement, the state’s governor concluded that this lack of 

compliance would allow unplanned growth and development to undermine 

the quality of life in these communities. 

States Are Taking 

Action to Help Local 

Governments Plan For 

and Manage Growth

States have taken such actions as passing laws, making regulatory changes, 

and offering financial incentives to help local governments plan for and 

manage growth. Since 1985, many states have passed or are considering 

legislation to update their planning and zoning enabling acts. Table 3 lists 

some of the states that have recently passed significant planning statute 

reforms. For example, the 1989 Georgia Planning Act requires local 

governments to adopt comprehensive plans to be eligible for certain types 

of state funding. Vermont’s 1988 Growth Management Act requires regional 

planning commissions to coordinate their planning activities with those of 

other regions, counties, and municipalities. Maryland’s 1997 Priority 

Funding Areas2

 legislation, part of its Smart Growth Program, limits most 

state infrastructure, economic development, housing, and other program 

funding to areas that local governments designate for growth. 

2

According to the Maryland Office of Planning, these include every municipality, areas inside 

the Washington and Baltimore beltways, areas already designated as enterprise zones, 

neighborhood revitalization areas, heritage areas, and existing industrial land.
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 98 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Table 3: Significant State Planning Statute Reforms

Source: American Planning Association, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Phases I and II, 

interim ed.; Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning (1998).

In addition to updating planning acts, states have enacted other types of 

legislation that help local governments plan for and manage growth. 

• California’s Land Conservation Act of 1965 authorizes local 

governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict 

the use of specific parcels to agricultural purposes or open space. In 

return, landowners are assessed property taxes at the comparatively 

low rate for farmland and open space rather than at a higher rate 

reflecting their property’s potential development value.

Year State Description/Summary

1985 Florida Requires all local governments to develop and implement a comprehensive plan on which future 

land-use decisions would be based.

1985 New Jersey Created the State Planning Commission and Office of State Planning, which in 1992 adopted a 

plan to guide public and private development toward compact, mixed-use projects that make the 

most efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure.

1988 Maine Established 10 goals for addressing growth and (initially) required all local governments to 

prepare comprehensive plans.

1988 Vermont Established a system for coordinating land-use planning at the municipal, regional, and state 

levels.

1989 Georgia Adopted minimum standards and procedures for local comprehensive planning to help ensure a 

comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated planning process at the local, regional, and state 

levels.

1990-1 Washington Requires city and county governments to adopt 20-year comprehensive plans that address land 

uses, housing, capital facilities, transportation, and utilities, to help meet such state goals as 

reducing urban sprawl and retaining open space and habitat areas.

1991 Kansas Established procedural changes for many planning and zoning actions and authorized the use of 

various new tools and techniques. There is still no state role in growth management, and local 

plans are voluntary. 

1992 Maryland Requires cities and counties to adopt comprehensive plans with certain elements that help fulfill 

such objectives as concentrating development and protecting natural resources. 

1997 Maryland Directs new development to municipalities, enterprise zones, and other locally designated priority 

funding areas by limiting state support for projects to these areas.

1998 Tennessee Requires local governments to establish growth boundaries and includes penalties for those that 

do not comply. Municipalities and counties with no metropolitan form of government are required 

to develop 20-year joint growth plans.

1999 Wisconsin Establishes consistent and uniform comprehensive planning requirements to, among other things, 

protect farmland and open space and preserve certain communities. Provides funding to local 

governments for comprehensive and transportation planning.
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 99 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

States can also influence local governments’ ability to plan for and manage 

growth through the funding they provide for certain purposes. In fact, 41 

percent of the counties and 32 percent of the cities we surveyed are using 

state funds to acquire and/or conserve farmland, forestland, or 

environmentally sensitive lands.

• New Jersey’s 1999 Garden State Preservation Trust Act sets aside $98 

million annually from the state’s sales tax over 10 years to repay $1 

billion in bonds issued to fund the purchase of farmland and open space. 

The state’s goal is to preserve 1 million acres. 

States also offer indirect financial incentives to encourage certain types of 

growth management activities. Of the localities responding to our survey, 

65 percent of the cities and 67 percent of the counties reported that they 

used funds targeted by the state for infrastructure in areas designated for 

development.

• Maryland helps local governments preserve undeveloped land by 

granting property tax credits to landowners if they place their land in a 

conservation easement donated to the Maryland Environmental Trust. 

The state has also lowered the eligibility requirements for its job 

creation tax credits to encourage more companies to locate in 

designated priority funding areas, such as urban centers and aging 

suburbs. 

Local Communities Are 

Getting More Involved 

in Planning For and 

Managing Growth 

To respond to the challenges created by growth, the majority of local 

governments that responded to our survey are highly involved in planning 

for and managing growth. About 72 percent of the cities classified their 

current involvement in planning for and managing growth as high or very 

high, as did 59 percent of counties. Seventy-five percent of the communities 

concerned about sprawl also ranked their current involvement as high or 

very high. Furthermore, 27 percent of the cities, 34 percent of the counties, 

and 32 percent of the communities concerned about “sprawl” expected to 

increase their involvement even more over the next 5 years. As shown in 

figure 13, almost three-quarters or more of the communities that responded 

to our survey expect their involvement in planning for and managing 

growth over the next 5 years to be high or very high.
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 100 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 13: Communities’ Expected Future Involvement in Planning For and 

Managing Growth

Land-Use Planning and 

Zoning Are the Most 

Useful Tools, but Local 

Governments Are Also 

Trying Innovative 

Approaches 

According to the cities and counties that responded to our survey, two 

traditional tools—land-use plans, which establish local land use and 

development objectives, and zoning authority, which localities use to 

implement their land-use plans—are used by more communities and were 

selected by more communities as the most useful tools in planning for and 

managing growth. However, some localities also reported using other, more 

innovative tools. Figure 14 shows the five growth management tools used 

most frequently by cities, counties, and communities concerned about 

“sprawl”. 

Cities Counties Communities concerned

about sprawl 

Percent

No, little, or some involvement

Moderate involvement

High or very high involvement

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 101 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 14: Five Most Frequently Used Local Growth Management Tools

Even though relatively few states mandate local land-use planning, almost 

90 percent or more of the cities and communities concerned about sprawl 

that responded to our survey reported using land-use plans and their zoning 

authority to concentrate development in designated areas. For example, 

Fresno, California, uses its land-use plan to project areas of growth in the 

community and then to project its needs for transportation, employment, 

and housing. Ninety-two percent of the cities and 76 percent of the counties 

we surveyed use land-use plans to concentrate development, even though 

only 38 percent of these cities and 23 percent of these counties are actually 

required by their states to develop land-use plans. Ninety-seven percent of 

0

20

40

60

80

100 Percent using tool

 Land-use 

 planning

 document

 Zoning

authority

 Mixed-use

zoning authority

Working with

 adjacent

 communities

Targeting state

 infrastructure

 funding

Cities

Counties

Communities concerned about sprawl
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 102 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

the cities and 73 percent of the counties surveyed report using their zoning 

authority to implement the land-use plans. Zoning is a tool that 

communities can use to regulate the use of land and the location and 

intensity of development. For example, in Duluth, Minnesota, city officials 

have created a series of zoning proposals in response to a recent study on 

local housing problems to regulate the location and density of housing and 

the income mix of residents. 

Local Governments 

Are Using Innovative 

Tools and Techniques

In addition to land-use plans and zoning, local governments are using legal 

authority, such as ordinances, financial incentives, regional approaches, 

and research to plan for and manage growth.

Legal Authority Local governments are issuing ordinances to control growth. Some 

ordinances establish fees for developers and promote denser development 

by encouraging mixed-use development. For example, about 59 percent of 

the cities and 39 percent of the counties that responded to our survey 

charge impact fees to developers to help offset the costs of the 

infrastructure (water and sewer lines, roads, schools, and other services) 

needed to support development. In the Atlanta metropolitan area alone, 10 

local governments charge such impact fees. Peachtree City, for instance, 

charges impact fees to help pay for the costs of transportation and parks, 

as well as such services as police, fire, and libraries.

Local governments are also using their regulatory power to promote 

specific growth management goals, such as denser growth in urban areas. 

About 91 percent of the cities and 64 percent of the counties that 

responded to our survey reported using their zoning authority to allow 

mixed-use developments like the Waterview complex in Arlington, Virginia. 

Arlington County rezoned the land for this high-density project that 

combines office, retail, and hotel space. In an effort to increase its 

population density and support its commercial center, the city of Redondo 

Beach, California, established a mixed-use ordinance to permit projects 

like a new residential-retail community. 

Financial Incentives Local governments offer grants, loans, and tax incentives to encourage 

certain types of development. In addition, they may target state funding to 

designated growth areas. Almost half of the cities responding to our survey 
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 103 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

reported offering developers grants, loans, and tax incentives to help 

encourage infill development (i.e., the redevelopment of previously used 

sites). For example, in Washington, D.C., the city council authorized the use 

of tax-increment financing for a planned mixed-use infill development 

project. To help pay for the combined entertainment, retail, and housing 

project, the city will sell bonds backed by the taxes it expects to collect 

from the project. 

In an effort to keep middle-class residents from seeking less expensive 

housing in the suburbs, Austin, Texas, is considering using about 40 percent 

of the tax revenue from city property as collateral for low-interest home 

improvement loans. Austin’s mayor argues that the measure will encourage 

middle-class residents to remain in the city, which will save the city’s tax 

base, prevent rush-hour traffic increases, and maintain the city’s diversity. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has a two-tiered tax system that encourages the 

redevelopment of vacant downtown land, including its brownfield sites 

(abandoned, idled, or underused industrial or commercial sites). 

Regional Approaches Local governments are also working with other jurisdictions to devise 

regional solutions for growth-related issues. This regional approach was 

the growth management tool used most frequently by counties (80 

percent). In addition, 78 percent of the communities concerned about 

sprawl and 71 percent of the cities reported working with adjacent 

communities to plan for and manage growth. In the Albuquerque 

metropolitan area, an organization called the Extraterritorial Land Use 

Authority is responsible for making land-use decisions in the 5-mile belt 

surrounding the city limits. Comprising city and Bernalillo County officials, 

the authority gives the county a role in approving annexations and 

controlling development at the edge of Albuquerque. In the Seattle, 

Washington, metropolitan area, nine local governments have formed a 

regional coalition to work on increasing the area’s supply of affordable 

housing. The coalition coordinates the distribution of local public 

resources through a housing trust fund that, according to the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, is the first of its kind in 

the nation. The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority is charged with 

combating air pollution, traffic congestion, and “poorly-planned 

development” in the 13-county Atlanta metropolitan area. In its role as the 

Governor’s Development Council, the authority is responsible for 

formulating a statewide land-use plan. 
Appendix VI

State and Local Governments’ Approaches to 

Planning For and Managing Growth

Page 104 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Research In three of the five metropolitan areas we visited, local governments, 

business leaders, and nonprofit organizations are conducting research on 

growth and its consequences in an effort to raise public awareness. For 

example, the Vermont Forum on Sprawl, a project sponsored by a private 

foundation operating in Vermont, has published a series of research and 

information papers on local growth issues. The publications explore such 

topics as local attitudes on sprawl, the causes and costs of sprawl in 

Vermont, and the impact of state investments and policies on sprawl. The 

Georgia Department of Transportation, the Atlanta Regional Commission, 

and the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, among others, are jointly 

sponsoring a research project that is examining how land-use policies 

affect travel patterns, air quality, and physical activity. In Fresno, 

California, members of the agricultural, development, conservation, and 

business communities have been collaborating on a course of action to 

accommodate the area’s growing population while protecting its 

agricultural resources.
Page 105 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth ApendxiVI

To provide for mobility as well as economic growth and development, state 

and local governments identify their needs for, plan for, and build roads, 

bridges, and transit systems. The need for such systems is great. According 

to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the federal government 

and state and local governments will need to spend around $56.6 billion per 

year through 2020 to maintain the current condition and performance of 

the nation’s highways and bridges.1

The federal government provides funding for highway and transit projects 

through grants, loans, and loan guarantees for capital development and 

improvements. Using fuel and related motor vehicle tax collections, DOT’s 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) distributes most highway funding 

annually to the states, according to a statutory formula. In fiscal year 2000, 

DOT provided about $28.9 billion for these purposes. DOT’s Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) provides formula and capital assistance grants to the 

states and communities for new transit systems and improvements to 

existing systems. In fiscal year 2000, DOT provided about $5.8 billion for 

these purposes. The federal government generally contributes 80 percent 

of the funding for highway and transit projects.

Since the early 1970s metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) have 

been significant players in urban transportation planning. The Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) significantly 

enhanced the role of MPOs in identifying transportation needs and 

priorities for transportation projects. Although MPOs vary in size and 

responsibility, an MPO’s policy-making body often consists of elected 

officials from the city and county governments, as well as officials from the 

metropolitan area’s public transportation agencies. The MPO’s mission is to 

develop consensus on a long-term transportation plan for an urban area 

and to develop a shorter-term transportation improvement program to 

implement the plan.

1

DOT projected the estimates in 1997 dollars.
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 106 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Communities Rated Federal 

Transportation Spending 

Programs as Helpful Most 

Often and Underfunded 

Most Often 

As discussed in appendix V, the majority of communities responding to our 

survey identified the need for new infrastructure, including roads, as their 

top concern. Enhancing their transportation system was also cited most 

often by nonrural counties and communities concerned about “sprawl” as a 

high or very high priority when planning for their future. In fact, over twothirds of the responding cities and counties said that enhancing their 

transportation system was a high or very high priority (see fig. 15). 

Figure 15: Communities Assigning a High or Very High Priority to Enhancing Their 

Transportation System

As figure 16 shows, funding for highways, bridges, and water-sewer 

infrastructure ranked above most funding categories in helpfulness. Among 

cities, funding for three other categories—public transportation, 

revitalizing distressed areas, and cleaning up brownfields—was also rated 

as very helpful by a majority of respondents. More cities also found funding 

for transportation alternatives helpful in planning for and managing growth 

than did counties. For example, Minneapolis, Minnesota, used 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cities

Counties

 Communities 

 concerned 

 about sprawl

Percent
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 107 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

transportation funds to rehabilitate a closed bridge into a short-line trolley, 

bicycle, and pedestrian corridor. A survey conducted after the project was 

completed found that 12,000 people per week were using the bridge—

nearly half to commute to and from the downtown central business district.
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 108 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 16: Communities Ranking Federal Funding as Very Helpful in Planning For and Managing Growth

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 90 100 70

Conservation easements 

for natural resources

Farmland preservation

Acquiring/conserving

open space

Open space preservation

Historic preservation

Assessing brownfields

School construction/

rehabilitation

Cleaning up brownfields

Affordable housing

Revitalizing

distressed areas

Community reinvestment

Transportation

alternatives

Public transportation

Water-sewer

infrastructure

Maintaining highways

and bridges

Building/expanding

highways and bridges

Infrastructure

Percent

Cities

Counties
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 109 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

We asked the communities to select 2 of 14 federal funding categories that 

were funded at levels lower than needed and whose underfunding hindered 

their ability to plan for and manage growth. As shown in figure 17, two 

transportation categories—funding for building or expanding and funding 

for maintaining highways and bridges—were chosen more frequently than 

other categories, not only by cities and counties but also by communities 

concerned about “sprawl.”

Figure 17: Federal Activities Cited Most Frequently as Underfunded

Note: Twenty-three percent of the cities and 33 percent of the counties either skipped this question or 

reported that none of the federal program areas were underfunded.

0

10

20

40

100

30

Building/

 expanding

 highways

 and bridges

Maintaining 

 highways 

 and bridges

Water-sewer 

infrastructure

 Public 

transportation

Revitalizing 

 distressed 

 areas

Affordable 

 housing

Percent

Cities

Counties

Communities concerned about sprawl
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 110 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Among counties, almost one in three respondents reported that shortfalls 

in funds for building highways and bridges most hindered their ability to 

plan for and manage growth. For example, the administrator of a rural 

county in West Virginia said that the lack of adequate funding for 

infrastructure meant that the county was reacting to rather than managing 

growth. Cities and communities concerned about “sprawl” identified 

funding for public transportation as one of the two most underfunded 

categories more often than counties. For example, the community 

development director of a city in Idaho told us that the city’s transit system 

is operating at capacity and needs new buses, but the formula funding from 

the federal government is sufficient to buy only one bus every 3 years. City 

and county officials in four of the five metropolitan areas we visited rated a 

shortage of funding for transit operations and insufficient capital funds 

among the top barriers to their efforts to plan for and manage growth 

because these shortfalls limited their ability to provide alternative modes of 

transportation. According to the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, while five 

communities participate in the region’s bus system, the system cannot 

expand to other communities because, in the absence of federal assistance, 

those communities do not have the resources needed to cover their portion 

of the operating costs.
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 111 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Providing Funding and 

Design Flexibility to Meet 

Local Transportation 

Infrastructure Needs

Community officials believe that flexibility in the use of federal funds for 

transportation is important in planning for and managing growth because it 

allows communities to adapt funded activities to fit the state or local 

context. Flexibility is one of the goals of TEA-21 and its predecessor, 

ISTEA. Under these acts, state and local governments are able to use much 

of their federal transportation funding for highway, transit, or alternative 

transportation projects, such as pedestrian and bicycle projects. For 

example, of the nearly $29 billion that TEA-21 authorized for the states for 

highway programs in fiscal year 2000, $5.6 billion is for the Surface 

Transportation Program. The funding in this program can be used for a 

wide range of highway, bridge, transit, alternative transportation, or other 

projects. An additional $7 billion, ostensibly for highway and bridge 

projects, can be transferred to transit or alternative transportation projects. 

In addition, the acts increased local control by allowing MPOs in 

metropolitan areas with populations of more than 50,000 to select 

transportation projects that best meet locally determined goals.2

Furthermore, both acts delegated substantial oversight of federally funded 

highway and bridge projects to the states, including the ability to prescribe 

design and construction standards. 

State and local officials were divided on whether federal transportation 

programs provide enough flexibility to address local growth needs. In 

California, state transportation officials told us that while the federal 

programs provide tremendous flexibility, the rules still compel 

communities to ask “what can I build?” with transportation funding rather 

than “what do I want to build?” Officials interviewed at four MPOs said 

regional flexibility in distributing transportation funds works well because 

transportation projects influence growth patterns in metropolitan areas 

and regional planning allows the balanced approach necessary to address 

local needs. 

2

Metropolitan areas with populations of over 50,000 are represented by MPOs. Each of 

these MPOs prepares a transportation improvement program, including a list of priority 

projects, subject to the approval of the state’s governor. Metropolitan transportation 

improvement programs are then incorporated without modification into the state 

transportation improvement program. In metropolitan areas of over 200,000, transportation 

projects (except projects on the National Highway System and projects funded by the 

Bridge, Interstate Maintenance, and Federal Lands Highway programs) are selected by the 

MPO in consultation with the state and transit operator from the approved metropolitan 

transportation improvement program.
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 112 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

The cities and counties responding to our survey were also split on whether 

federal transportation programs provide enough funding flexibility to 

pursue the transit and alternative transportation projects needed to plan 

for and manage growth. The cities were evenly divided while the counties 

were slightly more likely to report that these programs did not provide the 

funding flexibility to pursue the transit and alternative transportation 

projects needed to plan for and manage growth (see fig. 4).

The community development director of a city in Oregon reported that his 

city has the flexibility to pursue the transit and alternative transportation 

projects needed to plan for and manage growth. The city has a bus system 

and is building bikeways and pedestrian trails, including converting an old 

railroad bridge into a pedestrian and bike trail. The planning director of a 

small city in Texas reported that it has been unable to secure enough 

funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. This official believes the 

funding for federal transportation programs would be more flexible if it 

were provided through block grants to local governments. Other officials, 

in responding to our survey, indicated that the programs did not provide 

enough funding flexibility because they were concerned about the level of 

funding. Flexibility can cut both ways. In Fresno, California, local 

transportation officials told us they have more than enough funding for 

bike paths but not enough funds to repair crumbling infrastructure. 

Lack of flexibility does not appear, on balance, to be a major national 

barrier to communities’ efforts to plan for and manage growth. In addition 

to being fairly evenly divided, the communities responding to our survey 

did not express particularly strong views about this issue one way or the 

other. Communities were more likely to respond that programs “generally” 

did or did not provide enough flexibility than they were to report that the 

programs “definitely” did or did not. For example, only 13 percent of the 

counties believed they definitely did not have enough flexibility, compared 

with 30 percent who thought they generally did not. Similarly, only 6 

percent replied they definitely had enough flexibility, compared with 31 

percent who thought they generally did—a group six times larger.

More communities agreed than disagreed that federal design standards for 

roads and bridges provide enough flexibility to pursue alternatives local 

governments need to plan for and manage growth. Figure 18 shows the 

percentage of cities and counties that reported on flexibility in federal 

design standards.
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 113 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 18: Communities’ Views on Whether Federal Design Standards for Roads 

and Bridges Provide Enough Flexibility 

Note: The figure excludes communities that have not had projects requiring compliance with federal 

design standards.

An official representing South Burlington, Vermont, told us the application 

of federal design standards to the reconstruction of an exit ramp from 

Interstate 89 to their downtown would result in a structure that is too large 

and therefore inappropriate for their community. FHWA officials, however, 

stated that the community’s proposal would limit access to the highway, 

that the larger design is needed to meet Interstate construction standards 

for highway access, and that the agency is working with the community to 

come up with an acceptable design. 

Linking Transportation 

Projects and Local Land-Use 

Plans and Considering 

Effects on Growth

Officials told us that flexibility also means being responsive to local needs 

and concerns. For example, local officials we interviewed in four locations 

wanted to ensure that transportation planning is consistent with local landuse plans and that environmental assessments consider how federally 

funded projects (i.e., highways) affect local growth. While ISTEA included 

0

10

20

30

40

100

50

Cities Counties

Percent

Yes

No 

Uncertain
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 114 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

a planning factor covering consistency between local land-use and 

transportation plans, TEA-21 did not. However, the metropolitan planning 

regulations still provide for consideration of local land-use plans when 

developing long range transportation plans. 

In responding to our survey, 53 percent of the cities and 49 percent of the 

counties said they would strongly support a federal requirement that 

federal funding for road and highway projects be linked with local land-use 

plans, while less than 5 percent opposed such a requirement. Sixty-two 

percent of the communities concerned about sprawl also strongly 

supported such a link. The remainder of the responding communities either 

generally supported, were neutral, or were uncertain about their support. 

These were the most positive and one-sided responses we received to any 

of the options for changes to federal policies that we asked about in our 

survey. The community development director of a northeastern city 

strongly supported such a requirement because, in its absence, the state 

had used federal funds to expand a state highway to within 8 feet of a local 

historic landmark.

When asked whether federal environmental assessments should ensure 

consideration of the impact on local growth of federally funded 

infrastructure projects, such as highways, 30 percent of the cities and 29 

percent of the counties said they would strongly support such a 

requirement, while less than 5 percent from both groups were opposed. 

Currently, under regulations implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act, federal agencies are required to consider the environmental 

impacts of proposed projects that “significantly” affect the quality of the 

human environment. In their analyses, federal agencies routinely address 

the direct, and to a lesser extent the indirect and cumulative, effects of 

proposed actions. According to a Council on Environmental Quality 

official, indirect and cumulative effects include the likely impact of a 

project on growth and development. However, in practice, few agencies 

consider the effect of a proposed project on growth, according to EPA 

officials. For example, the environmental impact statement for a highway 

project currently under development in Chittenden County, Vermont, 

mentions that the project will have growth implications. Without detailing 

these implications, the statement advises the affected communities to 

address them. According to FHWA officials, the environmental impact 

statement notes some of the land-use issues that will need to be addressed 

and officials characterized these issues as the responsibility of state and 

local governments.
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 115 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Balancing Growing 

Transportation 

Infrastructure Needs and 

Compliance With Air Quality 

Standards

As populations grow and the pressure to expand transportation systems 

increases, the conflict between people’s demands for mobility and the 

government’s responsibility to protect air quality is likely to increase unless 

technology can keep pace and continue to reduce mobile source emissions. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 recognized this challenge and 

required that transportation plans conform with state implementation 

plans for attaining the air quality standards promulgated under the Clean 

Air Act. Under the Clean Air Act, a metropolitan area that does not have a 

conforming long-range transportation plan and transportation 

improvement program may advance only certain types of projects—those 

with a minimal impact on air quality. In Atlanta, which has been out of 

conformity for several years, local government and business leaders told us 

they supported this linking of air quality standards to transportation 

projects because it compelled local leaders in the metropolitan area to join 

together to address long-standing growth issues. However, leaders also 

believe that EPA and FHWA have been unduly restrictive in determining 

what types of transportation projects can be funded. While Atlanta officials 

want to extend rail service to outlying areas, EPA and FHWA officials told 

us that conformity statutes and regulations stipulate that only certain 

projects, such as those that do not add capacity, can be funded during a 

conformity lapse. An extension of rail service can be funded during a lapse 

only if it qualifies as a transportation control measure;3

 Atlanta officials 

chose not to submit the projects as transportation control measures 

because they believed the process for designating a transportation control 

measure was too lengthy. Finding the appropriate balance between 

complying with the conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act and 

satisfying local transportation needs will likely be an emerging issue for 

several large metropolitan areas.

Importance of Federal 

Spending for Water and 

Sewer Infrastructure Is 

Expected to Increase 

According to city and county officials in four metropolitan areas−

Albuquerque, Atlanta, Columbus, and Fresno−water supply and quality and 

wastewater issues will determine the direction of future growth in their 

communities. EPA, in its April 2000 assessment of communities’ needs for 

new and modernized water and wastewater infrastructure, estimated that, 

while public spending on water and wastewater infrastructure (operating 

and capital expenditures) was $1 trillion between 1956 and 1992, another 

3

Transportation control measures are projects that reduce emissions of air pollutants from 

transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion.
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 116 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

$1 trillion will be needed between 1993 and 2009. Between 2010 and 2020, 

another $1 trillion will be needed. 

Seven major federal programs provided about $4.3 billion in grants and 

loans for the construction or reconstruction of water and wastewater 

systems during fiscal year 2000. EPA estimates that all levels of government 

will spend $18.4 billion on water and wastewater capital spending in fiscal 

year 2000. These programs include the following:

• EPA provides capitalization grants to state revolving funds for the 

replacement or major rehabilitation of existing water or wastewater 

systems. The state makes loans only if, among other factors, the 

capacity of a proposed project is equal to the capacity of the existing 

project, plus a reasonable amount for future growth. 

• EPA provides capitalization grants to state revolving funds for drinking 

water systems, as well as upgrade and replacement infrastructure for 

those systems.

• Through its Public Works and Development Facilities program, the 

Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration 

provides grants to communities to finance a variety of infrastructure 

projects, including water and sewer projects in economically distressed 

areas.

• USDA’s Rural Utilities Service makes loans and grants available through 

its Water and Waste Disposal program for water and waste disposal 

projects in rural areas and towns with populations of less than 10,000.

• The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement and state 

programs fund a variety of community development projects, including 

water and wastewater systems. 
Appendix VII

The Influence of Federal Infrastructure 

Programs on Local Growth

Page 117 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

As discussed in appendix V, the communities responding to our survey 

identified aging infrastructure and the need for new infrastructure, 

including water and wastewater infrastructure, among their highest 

concerns. Aging infrastructure, compared with other concerns, was rated 

as a high or very high concern more often by central cities, and as a greater 

concern for cities, overall, than counties. As shown in figure 16, 59 percent 

of the responding cities and 58 percent of responding counties 

characterized the federal assistance they had used for water-sewer 

infrastructure as “very helpful”. For counties, this ranking was second in 

helpfulness only to federal transportation infrastructure spending. In 

Columbus, Ohio, officials told us EPA’s construction grants funding was 

useful because it supported the city’s annexation policy and prevented 

Columbus from being boxed in like other older cities. Since Columbus 

provides water services for 26 suburbs, the metropolitan area has benefited 

from the efficiencies of providing regional water service and directing 

growth to designated areas. Nearly one in five counties (18 percent) 

identified water-sewer infrastructure funding as one of the two most 

underfunded federal program activities. For example, the community 

development director in a small economically distressed northeastern city 

estimated that his city needed an additional $1 million to complete 

improvements to its combined sewer system. EPA has estimated that 

communities with combined sewer systems will incur up to $45 billion in 

costs to comply with its combined sewer overflow control policy.4

4

The policy requires communities with combined sewer systems that overflow during wet 

weather to accurately characterize their discharges, demonstrate the implementation of 

minimum technology-based controls identified in the policy, and develop long-term 

overflow control plans.
Page 118 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth ApendxiVI

In many communities, planning for and managing growth means the 

economic development and revitalization of downtown centers. 

Unemployment and poverty rates are higher in such areas, many of which 

are found in inner cities and rural communities. According to a recent 

survey by the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors, four out of five urban and suburban leaders said that considerable 

economic potential in inner-city and other neighborhoods has yet to be 

tapped. For example, nationwide, 450,000 brownfields await cleanup and 

conversion to productive uses. A lack of affordable housing is also a 

serious problem in rural and urban areas. According to HUD, 5.4 million 

renter households, a record high, were paying over half their income for 

housing or living in severely inadequate housing in 1997. HUD also reported 

that the number of affordable rental units decreased by 372,000 units, or 5 

percent, between 1991 and 1997. 

To address the problems of the nation’s economically distressed urban and 

rural communities, the federal government promotes revitalization and 

affordable housing through a number of programs. The following federal 

programs were among those most frequently mentioned by the local and 

state officials we interviewed. 

• HUD’s CDBG program provides grants to state and local governments 

for community development activities that (1) benefit low- and 

moderate-income persons, (2) prevent or eliminate slums or blight, or 

(3) meet other urgent community development needs.

• HUD’s Economic Development Loan Fund, more commonly known as 

the section 108 loan program, is a component of the CDBG program that 

provides loans to communities to leverage their CDBG grants with other 

private and public funds to finance larger community development 

efforts. 

• HUD’s Economic Development Initiative (EDI) provides grants to 

communities, in conjunction with the section 108 loan program, to help 

fund economic development projects or pay some of the costs 

associated with borrowing under the loan program.

• HUD’s Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) provides 

grants to local governments acquiring section 108 loan guarantees to 

finance the redevelopment of brownfields. 

• The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program 

provides grants and tax benefits to selected urban and rural 

communities to assist with revitalization efforts. 
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 119 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

• EPA’s Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots provides grants to 

state and local governments to support 2-year explorations and 

demonstrations of brownfield solutions. 

• The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and state tax credit allocation 

agencies administer the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) 

program, which provides tax credits to the private sector to develop 

rental housing for low-income households.

Both state and local governments administer federal community 

development programs. State agencies administer the Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit and CDBG grants awarded to smaller communities and 

rural areas and can receive Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot 

grants. Local governments administer the CDBG grants awarded directly to 

entitlement communities (local governments with 50,000 or more 

residents), other local governments designated as central cities of 

metropolitan areas, and urban counties with populations of at least 200,000 

(excluding the populations of entitled cities). Local governments are also 

the direct recipients of section 108 loans, EDI and BEDI grants, EZ/EC 

grants, and Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot grants.

City and county leaders reported that the economic condition of their 

community was a concern. As discussed in appendix V, about half of the 

cities and counties responding to our survey reported that an inadequate 

tax base for supporting schools and services was a high or very high 

concern. Almost two-thirds, or 62 percent, of the rural counties reported 

that it was a high or very high concern. A majority of the rural counties (56 

percent) also reported that difficulty attracting new businesses was a high 

or very high concern. A greater percentage of central cities were concerned 

about the decline of their downtown centers than other types of local 

communities, and 83 percent of the central cities reported that revitalizing 

their downtown centers was a high or very high priority. 
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 120 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Communities Said 

Federal Funding and 

Tax Incentives for 

Revitalization, 

Affordable Housing, 

and Brownfields 

Redevelopment Were 

Helpful but Often 

Insufficient

A majority of the cities responding to our survey rated the federal funding 

they used for revitalizing distressed areas and assessing and cleaning up 

brownfields as very helpful in planning for and managing growth (see fig. 

16). The central cities responding to our survey most often selected 

revitalizing distressed areas and affordable housing as the top two program 

areas whose underfunding hindered their efforts to plan for and manage 

growth. About half of the counties that responded rated federal funding for 

assessing and cleaning up brownfields as very helpful when planning for 

and managing growth. More central cities than other cities reported that 

tax benefits for community development were helpful. The majority of 

counties responding to the survey were either uncertain about the impact 

of most of the tax benefits we asked about or reported that they had no 

impact.

Communities, Especially 

Cities, Characterized 

Federal Spending and Tax 

Incentives for Revitalization 

as Helpful

By using federal funding for the revitalization of distressed areas to 

reinvest in downtowns and in-town neighborhoods, local governments can 

offer businesses and residents an attractive and reliable alternative to 

development in the suburbs. Almost all of the cities and counties 

responding to our survey saw federal funding for revitalizing distressed 

areas as helpful in planning for and managing growth, and over two-thirds 

of central cities rated two tax credits that affect infill development as 

helpful. Almost three-quarters (73 percent) of the central cities and over 

one-third of the nonrural counties (34 percent) reported they use federal 

funding for revitalizing distressed areas. Fifty-eight percent of all cities 

rated the federal funding they used for revitalizing distressed areas as very 

helpful in planning for and managing growth. Atlanta, for example, used EZ 

funds and a section 108 loan—the loan component of the CDBG program—

to finance a mixed-use development in a historic downtown neighborhood. 

Fresno officials described the CDBG program as the city’s most important 

federal aid in planning for and managing growth. The city has used its 

CDBG grant funds to rehabilitate streets and curbs in inner-city 

neighborhoods and a section 108 loan to finance a recreational facility in an 

inner-city neighborhood. Forty-one percent of the counties responding to 

our survey also viewed the federal funding they used for revitalizing 

distressed areas as very helpful in planning for and managing growth.

Compared with other cities, central cities were generally more certain and 

more positive about the impact of the rehabilitation tax credit—that is, tax 

credits for rehabilitating buildings for income-producing purposes—on 

their efforts to plan for and manage growth. Over two-thirds (69 percent) of 
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 121 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

the responding central cities reported that the rehabilitation tax credit was 

helpful. Figure 19 shows the extent to which central cities and other cities 

found selected federal tax policies helpful in planning for and managing 

growth. Counties were less certain about the impact of tax benefits used 

for redevelopment activities. For instance, 30 percent of the counties 

responding to our survey were uncertain about the impact of rehabilitation 

tax benefits. 

Figure 19: Extent to Which Cities Found Tax Benefits for Community Development 

Helpful

Officials told us that the rehabilitation tax credit would be even more 

helpful if it also applied to non-income producing properties. For instance, 

an Albuquerque official said many homes in a historic inner-city 

neighborhood were in need of repair. He believes that extending tax 

benefits to the rehabilitation of historic residential properties, many of 

which are located in urban areas, would provide an incentive for repairing 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Rehabilitation 

 tax credit

 Low-income 

 housing 

 tax credit

Percent that reported as helpful

Central cities

Noncentral cities
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 122 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

inner city homes and make more affordable housing available in urban 

areas. Forty-four percent of central cities, 32 percent of all cities, and 22 

percent of counties responding to our survey strongly supported the 

extension of federal tax benefits to the rehabilitation of historic residential 

properties. 

Some federal programs also use tax benefits to attract businesses to 

distressed areas. For example, the EZ/EC program allows businesses 

located in designated areas to receive tax credits on the wages paid to 

employees who live and work in the zones. Seventy-three percent of the 

EZ/EC communities responding to our survey reported that federal tax 

benefits for businesses locating in selected central cities and other 

designated areas helped them plan for and manage growth.1

Communities Said Federal 

Affordable Housing 

Programs Were Very Helpful 

but Underfunded

Federal funding for affordable housing can help local communities develop 

in-town housing that is affordable, thus providing an alternative to 

development on the edges of metropolitan areas where land may be 

cheaper. Thirty-four percent of the cities and 32 percent of the counties 

responding to our survey reported that a shortage of affordable housing in 

their communities was a high or very high concern. Furthermore, the 

largest cities were more often concerned about affordable housing than 

smaller cities. Eighty-five percent of the responding cities with populations 

of over 500,000 regarded the shortage of affordable housing as a high or 

very high concern.2

 Moreover, according to city and county officials we 

interviewed in three locations, the lack of affordable housing was a 

concern in their communities. 

Over 90 percent of the central cities reported using federal funds for 

affordable housing, and over half of these cities found the funding very 

helpful in planning for and managing growth. In addition, as shown in 

figure 19, 86 percent of the central cities—compared with 63 percent of 

other cities—reported that low-income housing tax credits were helpful to 

them in planning for and managing growth. However, over one in five 

central cities identified funding for affordable housing as among the two 

1

Of the cities and counties responding to our survey, 70 were designated as EZ/EC 

communities. We did not include cities and counties that are part of multijurisdictional EZs 

or ECs in our analysis.

2

Of the 20 cities with populations over 500,000 that responded to our survey, 17 reported that 

a shortage of affordable housing was a high or very high concern.
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 123 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

most underfunded federal program areas. Affordable housing was also a 

significant issue for nonrural counties. Seventy percent of the nonrural 

counties reported using federal funds for affordable housing, and 38 

percent of these counties found the funding very helpful. Sixty-one percent 

of the nonrural counties—slightly more than the percentage for all 

counties—reported that low-income housing tax credits helped them to 

plan for and manage growth.

According to officials we interviewed during our site visits, the shortage of 

funding for affordable housing in urban areas has forced people to move to 

the fringes of metropolitan areas, where housing is typically less expensive. 

The Atlanta Regional Commission reported that in 1990 there were almost 

9,300 substandard housing units in the region and noted that housing costs 

are increasing in the region because of, among other things, rapid growth, 

development codes, and fees. 

Communities, Especially 

Those Concerned About 

Sprawl, Found Federal 

Funding for Brownfields 

Redevelopment Helpful, and 

Concerns About Liability 

Did Not Hinder Most 

By using federal funding for assessing and cleaning up brownfield sites, 

local governments can encourage the reuse of brownfields sites and 

provide developers with alternatives to undeveloped sites on the edges of 

metropolitan areas. Almost half of the cities and counties responding to our 

survey indicated they were redeveloping brownfields. For central cities, the 

figure was 67 percent, with 38 percent expressing a high or very high 

concern about the difficulty of redeveloping abandoned industrial sites. 

According to HUD, cleaning up brownfields not only improves a 

community’s environment and health but also creates jobs and can be a 

focal point for revitalization. Slightly more communities are using federal 

funds to assess the contamination at brownfields than to clean them up. 

For example, 43 percent of the central cities and 22 percent of the nonrural 

counties responding to our survey are using federal funds to assess 

brownfields for toxic hazards, while 33 percent and 18 percent of those 

cities and counties, respectively, are using federal funds to clean up 

brownfields. Virtually all the responding communities reported that the 

federal funding they used for assessing and cleaning up brownfields was 

helpful in planning for and managing growth. 

Communities concerned about sprawl rated funding for cleaning up 

brownfields as very helpful more often than other types of federal funding. 

According to a U.S. Conference of Mayors report on brownfields, the cities 

they surveyed most frequently identified a lack of cleanup funds as an 

impediment to brownfields redevelopment. The communities concerned 

about sprawl that responded to our survey also rated funding for assessing 
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 124 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

brownfields as among the most helpful. HUD’s BEDI is a source of federal 

funding for cleaning up brownfields. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the 

Congress appropriated $25 million for the program. According to HUD, this 

$50 million in grants leveraged $249 million in section 108 loan guarantees 

and $1.4 billion in public and private investment. In fiscal year 1998, the city 

of Los Angeles received $1.7 million through this program and $10.4 million 

in section 108 loan guarantees to redevelop the 208-acre Goodyear Tract, 

located in the Los Angeles EZ, converting it from an abandoned industrial 

site to a modern business park and retail center. Four of the five cities we 

visited—Albuquerque, Atlanta, Burlington, and Columbus—have each 

received grants from EPA to assess the extent of contamination at selected 

brownfield sites and to test cleanup and redevelopment models. For 

example, Columbus received $200,000 to target eight former industrial sites 

located near an airport.

We have reported that concerns about Superfund liability have both helped 

and hindered brownfield redevelopment. Because the law retroactively 

assigns “strict, joint, and several liability” to potentially responsible parties 

for all cleanup costs and damage to natural resources, the owners of 

brownfield properties may be held fully liable for any contamination, even 

though they did not contribute to or mismanage the contamination. 

Cleanup costs can be prohibitive, and available land in urban areas often 

requires some cleanup.

In an April 1997 report, we noted that, in some cases, states have found that 

Superfund liability provisions have provided leverage to persuade 

responsible parties to clean up the more highly contaminated sites in their 

inventories.3

 However, in June 1996, we reported that the potential of being 

held liable under Superfund for the contamination on brownfield 

properties is a significant barrier to redevelopment, according to lenders, 

property purchasers such as developers, and property owners.4

No clear picture emerged from our survey of the extent to which cities and 

counties believe that concerns about incurring liability for prior 

contamination under the federal Superfund law have hindered the 

redevelopment of brownfields. As figure 20 shows, about half of the 

3

Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives to Encourage Cleanup

(GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr. 9, 1997).

4

Superfund: Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment (GAO/RCED-96-125, June 17, 1996).
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 125 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

responding communities that said they were redeveloping brownfields 

were either uncertain about whether the possibility of federal Superfund 

liability had hindered their efforts to redevelop brownfields over the last 5 

years or reported that such concerns had no impact. The remaining 

communities were about split on whether such concerns had helped or 

hindered their ability to redevelop brownfields over the last 5 years, with 

slightly more reporting that it helped. 

Figure 20: Impact of Concerns About Superfund Liability on Brownfield 

Redevelopment

Note: This figure excludes those communities that reported that they were not redeveloping 

brownfields. 

According to EPA officials, the agency has worked to address the concerns 

raised by lenders, developers, and property owners by clarifying the 

liability of parties associated with contaminated property. For example, 

EPA supported legislation that amended the Superfund law to exempt 

lenders and fiduciaries meeting certain conditions from liability.

0

10

20

30

100

40

Helped Hindered No impact Uncertain

Percent

Cities

Counties

Communities concerned about sprawl
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 126 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Communities Said Federal 

Programs Do Not Provide 

Enough Funding Flexibility 

for Them to Pursue Infill 

Development

Infill development offers businesses and prospective home buyers an 

alternative to locations in suburban areas. Some of the state officials we 

interviewed and many of the communities that responded to our survey 

identified a mismatch between their infill development needs and the 

federal government’s approaches to community development. For 

example, Georgia officials noted that, while the criteria for the CDBG 

program are good, they are so narrowly focused that they do not allow for 

consideration of all the costs associated with a project, including growthrelated costs. Also, Vermont officials stated that the CDBG program was an 

urban program that was not tailored to rural states trying to come up with 

regional solutions to community development needs. As we reported in 

June 1998, the degree of flexibility in grant programs is affected by how the 

funds are distributed to subrecipients, the choice of activities, and the 

allocation of grant funds across activities.5

Fifty-seven percent of the cities and 47 percent of the counties responding 

to our survey reported that federal programs did not give them enough 

funding flexibility to pursue infill development (see fig. 5). Counties were 

more uncertain about whether federal programs gave them enough funding 

flexibility to pursue infill development. Of those counties pursuing infill 

development, about 39 percent said they were uncertain about the level of 

federal funding flexibility.

Over half of the responding cities reported that they did not have the 

flexibility they needed to pursue infill development. For example, the 

manager of a city in Wisconsin told us that the income requirements for 

HUD’s affordable housing programs are unrealistically low. To meet these 

requirements, the city can build affordable housing only for low-income 

renters, instead of building affordable housing for households with more 

moderate incomes—housing that would help the city meet its goal of 

increasing homeownership. Two city officials told us that their cities’ infill 

development efforts would be helped if they could use a larger proportion 

of their CDBG money to support infill development, 70 percent of which 

must be spent on projects that benefit low- to moderate-income persons. 

According to HUD officials, up to 30 percent of a community’s CDBG funds 

can be spent on projects that improve slums and blight or meet urgent 

community development needs. The remaining 70 percent of CDBG funds 

and federal funding for affordable housing programs are targeted to help 

5

Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and Performance 

Information (GAO/GGD-98-137, June 22, 1998).
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 127 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

low- and moderate-income persons in order to ensure that scarce federal 

resources benefit those most in need.

Communities Supported 

Federal Facility Relocation 

Policies and Found 

Compliance Helpful

The federal government can also play a role in improving the viability of 

downtown areas by locating facilities in downtown locations. The Rural 

Development Act of 1972, as amended, directs federal agencies to give first 

priority to locating new offices and other facilities in rural areas. However, 

when the agency’s mission and program requirements require an urban 

location, the agency must comply with Executive Orders 12072 and 13006. 

Executive Order 12072, promulgated in August 1978 by President Carter, 

directs federal agencies to give first consideration to a centralized 

community business area and adjacent areas of similar character when 

filling space needs in urban areas. Executive Order 13006, promulgated by 

President Clinton in May 1996, reaffirms the commitment set forth in 

Executive Order 12072 to strengthen the nation’s cities by encouraging the 

location of federal facilities in central cities. Specifically, it requires federal 

agencies to give first consideration to historic properties within historic 

districts, especially those located in central business areas. The executive 

orders have no associated reporting requirements.

City officials we interviewed in all locations believe that locating federal 

facilities downtown contributes to the economic well-being of downtown 

areas. The communities where federal facilities were relocated held 

differing views on whether the federal agencies had complied with federal 

urban relocation policies. Figure 21 shows how these communities rated 

federal agencies’ compliance with urban relocation policies over the last 5 

years.
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 128 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 21: Compliance With Federal Urban Relocation Policies Over the Last 5 Years

Note: This figure excludes local communities that reported there had been no relevant federal agency 

relocations over the last 5 years.

According to our survey results, the majority of all communities that rated 

compliance as good or excellent also reported that it helped them plan for 

and manage growth. Conversely, the majority of communities that rated 

compliance as poor reported that it hindered them, to an even greater 

degree. Figure 22 shows how communities that rated federal agencies’ 

compliance with urban relocation policies as poor characterized the impact 

of such compliance. Twenty-nine percent of the responding communities 

(cities and counties combined) reported that federal agencies’ compliance 

with the executive orders was poor or very poor, and 78 percent of those 

said that the lack of compliance hindered their ability to plan for and 

manage growth. In addition, 44 percent of the responding communities 

100

40

30

20

10

0

Cities Counties Communities

concerned

about sprawl

Excellent or good

Fair

Poor or very poor

Uncertain

Percent
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 129 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

(cities and counties combined) rated compliance as good or excellent, and 

64 percent reported that the compliance helped them plan for and manage 

growth. 

Figure 22: Impact of Federal Agencies’ Compliance With Urban Relocation Policy for 

Communities Reporting Poor or Very Poor Compliance

The General Services Administration (GSA), which administers the two 

executive orders, is not required to, and does not centrally collect data that 

could be used to show whether federal facilities are being located in 

suburban areas. However, it did provide data for our April 1999 report 

showing that almost half of leased federal facilities were located in central 

business districts.6

 The mayor of Baltimore, in December 1998, praised 

GSA for adding over 500 new federal jobs to the city and complying with 

Executive Order 12072. In contrast, officials in Burlington, Vermont, 

criticized a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to build 

a new 48,000-square-foot facility on undeveloped land in the suburbs, 

maintaining that it contributed to sprawl and hurt their efforts to plan for 

6

See footnote 1 in the report letter. 

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Helped

Hindered

No impact
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 130 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

and manage growth. According to the mayor of Burlington, the solicitation 

for the project not only did not give priority to the downtown but was even 

written to favor a suburban location. According to GSA officials, the agency 

worked with the city of Burlington and the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service to find the best fit. To respond to cases like this that do not satisfy 

everyone involved and address other opportunities to be a good neighbor, 

GSA has formed the Center for Urban Development. The center’s mission is 

to leverage GSA’s real estate actions (i.e., building new buildings, repairing 

and altering existing buildings, leasing space in privately owned buildings, 

and disposing of surplus real estate) in ways that bolster communities’ 

efforts to promote “smart growth,” downtown revitalization, and cultural 

and economic vibrancy.

Local Communities’ Views 

Differ on the Impact of Post 

Office Relocations

Since communities believe that having federal and postal facilities located 

in downtown areas contributes to the economic viability of those areas, 

many communities have expressed concerns that the U.S. Postal Service’s 

decisions to move some post offices out of downtown centers have 

hindered attempts to revitalize these centers. According to the Postal 

Service, it voluntarily complies with federal relocation policies that apply 

to urban areas. Under law, the Postal Service must meet stringent 

standards when it closes a post office—including holding public hearings 

and studying the impact on the community and postal employees.7

According to a Postal Service official, closing a post office takes about 4 

years. However, according to the Postal Service, these provisions apply to 

permanent post office closures and do not apply when the Postal Service 

relocates a facility. 

Local officials we interviewed were concerned about the impact of moving 

postal facilities outside downtown areas. According to our survey results, 

the communities where postal facilities were relocated in the last 5 years 

held differing views on the impact of the relocations. Rural counties were 

the most negative: 16 out of 28 respondents (57 percent) reported that a 

postal relocation had a negative impact on their ability to plan for and 

manage growth. Nonrural counties were more divided in their assessments: 

32 percent said the relocations were positive and 28 percent said the 

7

According to the Postal Service, a post office closure occurs when the Service permanently 

discontinues the operations of an independent post office, eliminates its concomitant 

postmaster position, and provides the affected customers with alternative postal services, 

such as rural route services.
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 131 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

relocations had a negative impact. The cities and communities concerned 

about sprawl tended to be more negative than positive about the impact of 

postal relocations. Figure 23 shows how communities rated the impact of 

recent postal relocations.

Figure 23: Effect of Postal Relocations That Occurred Over the Last 5 Years

The main post office in a Connecticut city was located in the city’s central 

business district. Four years ago, the Postal Service built a new facility on 

the outskirts of town, but it continues to use the older facility for retail 

purposes. While town officials were concerned that the central business 

district would lose commercial traffic, there have been no negative 

consequences from the move to date. According to the administrator of a 

rural county in West Virginia, the Postal Service’s decision to move a retail 

facility from one of the central business districts in the county to a location 

Cities Counties Communities

concerned

about sprawl

100

40

30

20

10

0

Positive

Both positive and negative

Negative

Uncertain

Percent
Appendix VIII

The Influence of Federal Community 

Reinvestment Programs on Local Growth

Page 132 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

a few miles outside of town was both positive and negative. On the one 

hand, the downtown traffic problems created by the lack of parking around 

the old facility were solved. On the other hand, the businesses located 

downtown complain that a smaller retail facility located within a furniture 

and appliance store has limited service hours. In a rural Ohio county, the 

post office moved 1 mile away from the downtown to a location near an 

interstate highway. The county administrator said postal officials did not 

coordinate the move with them. The state department of transportation has 

to put in a new access road because of increased traffic at the new location, 

and the county has begun several activities to revitalize the downtown area 

the post office left. 

According to the U.S. Postal Service’s Federal Preservation Officer, the 

Postal Service’s policy is to coordinate new construction, expansions, and 

relocations with local officials. In October 1998, the Postal Service enacted 

new regulations for increasing coordination with localities when 

expanding, relocating, and constructing post offices. These regulations 

include requirements for postal officials to notify the public and meet with 

public officials. Postal officials also told us they explore every option for 

maintaing retail operations in downtown locations; in some cases they 

have retained retail operations in downtown locations and moved 

distribution operations to different locations. In responding to the West 

Virginia example, the Federal Preservation Officer said the relocation 

happened prior to the implementation of revised regulations covering 

coordination with local officials. With regard to the Ohio example, the 

Federal Preservation Officer said the Postal Service’s policy is to 

coordinate planned relocations with the cognizant local officials—

municipal officials when the move affects an incorporated area and county 

officials when the move affects an unincorporated area. Because the move 

occurred within an incorporated area, postal officials did not believe the 

county had jurisdiction and therefore did not coordinate the relocation 

with county officials.
Page 133 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland ApendxiIX

As we reported in appendix IV, about 30 million acres of nonfederal, 

previously undeveloped land were developed between 1982 and 1997. 

While much of this land had previously been forestland or cropland, in 1997 

it accounted for over one-quarter of all developed land in the United States. 

According to a June 1999 report of the President’s Livable Communities 

Initiative, many communities believe development patterns are decreasing 

open space and farmland, which can threaten recreational opportunities, 

local economies, and the environment. Loss of farmland was a high or very 

high concern for about 45 percent of the rural counties responding to our 

survey, and 59 percent also reported that maintaining a portion of their land 

for agricultural use was a high or very high priority when planning for the 

future. Not surprisingly, preserving parks and other open spaces was also a 

high or very high priority for half of the nonrural counties and 62 percent of 

the communities concerned about “sprawl.”

USDA's Economic Research Service does not consider land development 

and farmland conversion to be a threat to food production nationally. The 

Service's research shows that the proportion of cropland converted to 

urban uses is relatively small. Furthermore, according to the Service, 

productivity gains will likely more than offset future losses of cropland to 

urbanization. However, the Service has also said that farmland conversion 

is a concern when issues such as protecting unique farmland, maintaining 

the strength of local communities and agricultural economies, preserving 

wetlands, and preventing “urban sprawl” are involved. 

According to a June 1999 report of the President's Livable Communities 

Initiative, 16 federal programs, administered through seven different 

agencies, are designed to preserve farmland and open space. About half of 

these programs, including the three discussed below, provide funding to 

local communities for activities such as acquiring easements for farmland 

and forests, managing forests and natural resources in urban areas, and 

conserving rivers and developing recreational trails. 

• The Farmland Protection Program provides matching funds to state and 

local governments to purchase conservation easements or other 

interests on land that limit the conversion of prime and unique farmland 

to nonagricultural uses.1

1

A conservation easement is a deed restriction that landowners voluntarily place on their 

property to protect resources such as production agricultural land and wildlife habitat.
Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland

Page 134 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

• The Land and Water Conservation Fund accumulates most of its 

revenues from offshore oil and gas receipts, which are then used for 

purposes such as acquiring lands that protect critical habitat and 

historic sites and providing for recreation and open space. Four federal 

agencies—the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service—receive a portion of these 

funds. There is also a matching grants program that assists states (and 

localities) in acquiring and developing recreation sites and facilities.

• The Urban and Community Forestry Program promotes the 

conservation and management of forests and other natural resources in 

cities. The program provides educational, technical, and financial 

support through federal, state, and local partnerships. 

Federal Funding for 

Preservation Is Limited 

Federal programs that fund the preservation of farmland and open space 

are relatively small, and responsibility for them is dispersed among several 

federal agencies. Officials we spoke with during our site visits described 

federal programs for preserving farmland and open space as limited in their 

usefulness because of funding constraints. While some states have used the 

federal funding to leverage other public and private funds, the federal 

funding is insufficient to satisfy the demand. In 1996, the Congress 

authorized $35 million for the Farmland Protection Program for 6 years, 

but demand for the funds was so high that they were all obligated by the 

third year. Only $250,000 was appropriated for the program through the 

fiscal year 2000 budget, though an additional $10 million in new funding 

was provided the same year through a separate act. The President's fiscal 

year 2001 budget requests $50 million in funding for the program. Vermont 

has combined Farmland Protection Program funds with state and private 

funds to purchase conservation easements on farmland throughout the 

state; however, according to one official, the state could double or triple its 

rate of activity if it had more funds.

Officials we interviewed also said that the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund was underfunded. Although the fund collects about $900 million each 

year, annual appropriations have generally ranged between $200 million 

and $300 million over the past 20 years. Since the program took effect in 

1965, about two-thirds of the funds appropriated have been allocated to 

federal agencies. Grants to the states have averaged approximately $94 

million per year since 1965, peaking at $369 million in 1979. In fiscal year 

2000, $40 million was appropriated for the state grants program. Ohio's 

Department of Agriculture has used federal Land and Water Conservation 
Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland

Page 135 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

funds to establish a popular program that uses buffer strips of land to 

prevent development. However, an official told us that the state could use 

more funds from this program. State officials in California told us that 

federal funding has not had a great impact on the preservation of land in 

California—the nation's top producing agricultural state. In the absence of 

federal funding, the official said, the state has dramatically stepped up its 

farmland preservation activities.

Few of the communities responding to our survey reported using federal 

funds for the preservation of farmland and open space. Only 39 percent of 

the counties reported using federal funding for acquiring or conserving 

open space, conservation easements for natural resources, or farmland 

preservation. Interestingly, the proportion of cities (33 percent) that 

reported using federal funds to acquire and conserve open space was 

higher than the proportion of rural counties (22 percent). For example, a 

city in Michigan used transportation enhancement funds to acquire open 

space for a bikeway. In some cases, cities are using federal funding not 

expressly designated for open space preservation to acquire and preserve 

open space. A city in Colorado used CDBG funds to develop two parks in 

older, low-income neighborhoods.

Proposals to increase federal financing for preservation activities have 

been introduced into the Congress. In 1999, the Clinton Administration 

proposed the “Better America Bonds” program, which proposed to provide 

$700 million in tax credits in order to generate $9.5 billion in bond authority 

over 5 years, to be used for preserving green space, enhancing water 

quality, and cleaning up brownfields. In addition, in May, the House 

approved the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000, which provides 

about $3 billion for open space acquisition and conservation activities.

Communities See 

Farmland Protection 

Legislation as 

Ineffective Because 

Guidance Is Lacking

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider 

the potential adverse effects of federal programs on the preservation of 

farmland and to take alternative actions that could lessen the extent to 

which federal programs contribute to the conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Officials we interviewed during our site visits said 

that the act was ineffective. The Ohio Department of Agriculture considers 

the act to be ineffective because the federal government is caught between 

minimizing the negative impact of its programs on farmland preservation 

and promoting growth and development to strengthen the economy. This 

dichotomy makes it very difficult to find a solution for preserving farmland. 

Furthermore, officials recommended that criteria for choosing alternative 
Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland

Page 136 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

actions be consistent with state goals and values. Similarly, a California 

official considers the act to be a “toothless tool” because, while agencies 

are required to consider the potential impact of their projects on farmland, 

there are no consequences if they go ahead with a project. 

In our April 1999 report, we reported that USDA officials told us that the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act is not enforceable because it offers no 

guidance for choosing a less damaging alternative and no incentives for 

doing so. While USDA has acknowledged the need for more effective 

implementation, officials at the Department's Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, which oversees the act's implementation, told us 

they lack the resources to strengthen their oversight.

The cities and counties responding to our survey were generally uncertain 

about how well federal agencies were complying with the act and how the 

agencies' compliance affected the communities' own ability to plan for and 

manage growth. Figure 24 shows the responses of the counties and 

communities concerned about “sprawl” that have farmland and have had 

experience with a federal decision affecting farmland within their 

jurisdiction. Of these groups of respondents, an average of about threequarters either were uncertain how federal agencies' compliance with the 

act affected their own ability to plan for and manage growth or said that the 

act had no impact, suggesting that local knowledge about the act is 

minimal.
Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland

Page 137 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 24: Impact of Federal Agencies' Compliance With the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act on Counties and Communities Concerned About Sprawl

Counties

Helped

Hindered

No impact

Uncertain

Helped

Hindered

No impact

Uncertain

15%

11%

12%

15%

25%

26%

48%

48%

Communities concerned about sprawl
Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland

Page 138 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

A Recent Federal 

Estate Tax Change and 

Tax Credits for Land 

Donations Have 

Helped to Preserve 

Farmland and Open 

Space

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 reduced the estate tax burden on farms 

and qualified family businesses, which supporters believe encourages the 

continued operation of family farms. In a recent report on federal tax laws 

that affect farmers and rural communities, USDA's Economic Research 

Service noted that the new exclusion “should reduce, if not eliminate, the 

need to sell farm assets to pay Federal estate taxes.” The same study noted 

that relatively few landowners would benefit from a comparable exclusion 

for land subject to conservation easements.2

Over one-quarter (27 percent) of the rural counties responding to our 

survey reported that this recent federal estate tax change had encouraged 

families that wanted to keep the farms they inherited. Figure 25 shows how 

rural and nonrural counties with farmland rated the impact of this change. 

2

James Monke and Ron Durst, The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997: Provisions for Farmers and 

Rural Communities, USDA, Economic Research Service, Agriculture Economic Report No. 

764 (July 1998), p. 18.
Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland

Page 139 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 25: Impact of Federal Estate Tax Change on Families Inheriting Farms

Rural counties were more certain of the impact of the recent federal estate 

tax exclusion than nonrural counties. Of those that rated the impact, rural 

counties were slightly more positive—27 percent of the rural counties said 

it encouraged families that wanted to keep their farms, compared with 21 

percent of the nonrural counties. For example, the administrator of a rural 

Discouraged

Encouraged

No impact

Uncertain

Discouraged

Encouraged

No impact

Uncertain

5%

27%

21%

47%

5%

21%

18%

56%

Rural counties

Nonrural counties
Appendix IX

The Influence of Federal Programs and 

Policies on Preserving Open Space and 

Farmland

Page 140 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

county in Illinois said that the recent tax change has helped local families 

keep their farms, which also helps the county withstand increasing 

development pressure. Only 5 percent of both groups said it discouraged 

families, and the remainder reported it had no impact or they were 

uncertain of any impact. Conversely, the rural counties were less positive 

than the nonrural counties about the impact of the tax benefits that 

landowners receive if they donate land or development rights for 

conservation purposes. While over half of the nonrural counties (55 

percent) and rural counties (64 percent) were uncertain of the impact or 

reported no impact, a significant percentage of each (44 percent and 33 

percent, respectively) reported the tax benefits had helped their 

communities plan for and manage growth. For example, an official in a 

rural county in Michigan told us farmers and landowners are taking 

advantage of the tax benefits they receive if they donate land or 

development rights for conservation purposes. The official said this will 

help the county maintain outlying areas of farmland and green space and 

concentrate new development around the county's major hubs.
Page 141 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix X

Federal Policy Options ApendxiX

We asked the communities that responded to our survey the extent to 

which they supported 14 options for changes to federal programs that 

could affect planning for and managing growth in their communities. 

Figures 26 and 27 show that, overall, support for these options was 

proportionally stronger among the communities concerned about “sprawl” 

than among cities or counties as a whole. 

Figure 26: Federal Policy Options Most Often Strongly Supported by Local Communities

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent that strongly support

Require that

federal funding

for roads and

highways be

linked with

local land use

plans

Increase

incentives 

for local 

governments

to pursue 

"smart growth"

Target funding

for infrastructure 

to areas 

designated

for growth

Provide more

incentives for

communities

to pursue

regional 

solutions to

managing 

growth

Provide funding

for regional water

quality planning

Ensure that

environmental

assessments

consider how

federally-funded

projects impact

growth

Provide more

technical

assistance to

help communities

forecast growth

patterns

Communities concerned about sprawl

Cities

Counties
Appendix X

Federal Policy Options

Page 142 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Figure 27: Other Federal Policy Options Strongly Supported by Local Communities 

100

40

30

20

10

0

Percent that strongly support

Expand tax

benefits for

historic properties

to cover

rehabilitation

of residential

properties

Give tax

incentives

to developers

who build in 

areas designated

for growth

Give developers

more tax

incentives

to rebuild on

brownfields

Give incentives

to promote

mixed-income

housing

Give taxpayers

an additional

tax benefit

for purchasing

homes in areas

designated

for growth

Require MPOs to

represent local

governments in

proportion to their

populations

Limit Superfund

liability for

developers of

brownfields

Communities concerned about sprawl

Cities

Counties
Page 143 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix XI

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture ApendxiXI

Note: GAO’s comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix XI

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture

Page 144 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

The following are GAO’s comments on the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service’s 

(NRCS) letter dated July 24, 2000.

GAO’s Comments 1. We corrected the number of farmland acres preserved by the Farmland 

Protection Program through the end of 1998.

2. We changed the report to include the additional $10 million provided to 

the Farmland Protection Program through the Agricultural Risk 

Protection Act of 2000. 
Page 145 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix XII

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxiXI

Note: GAO’s comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.
Appendix XII

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 146 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix XII

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 147 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix XII

Comments From the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 148 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

The following are GAO’s comments on the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) letter dated July 26, 2000.

GAO’s Comments 1. We disagree with EPA that more discussion on the implications of 

surveying local government officials is needed. We recognize that the 

level of knowledge local government officials have of federal programs 

and policies may be greater in some areas than others. However, our 

approach was to identify the key players most responsible for planning 

for and managing growth in their communities and to survey that 

population to identify their growth related concerns and the issues they 

face. We also obtained the views of regional and state officials during 

site visits to balance the views of local government officials. 

2. We disagree with EPA that our report repeatedly asserts that the federal 

influence on development decisions, patterns, and growth management 

is small. Our report acknowledges that the federal government 

influences growth decisions through spending, taxation, and selected 

regulatory and administrative activities. However, we concluded that 

when compared with the influence state and local governments have in 

local growth issues, the federal influence is small. 

We also disagree that our observation on federal influences is 

inconsistent with the findings of our April 1999 report. That report 

addressed a different question. In 1999 we reported that, according to 

published literature and research, the influence of federal programs 

and policies in promoting “urban sprawl” over the past 50 years was 

unclear. This report examines how federal programs and policies 

influence state and local decisionmakers as they plan for the future of 

their communities.

3. We agree that there are close interrelationships among these issues and 

broader policy implications. However, a further discussion of the 

relationship between infrastructure, traffic congestion, and “sprawl”, as 

well as the relationship between land use, transportation, and air 

quality, was beyond the scope of our review.

4. We modified the report to provide additional examples.
Page 149 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix XIII

Comments From the General Services 

Administration ApendxXiI

Note: GAO’s comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.
Appendix XIII

Comments From the General Services 

Administration

Page 150 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues
Appendix XIII

Comments From the General Services 

Administration

Page 151 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

The following are GAO’s comments on the General Services 

Administration’s (GSA) letter dated August 7, 2000.

GAO’s Comments 1. Information regarding the activities of GSA’s Center for Urban 

Development is contained in appendix VIII.

2. We changed the report to make it clearer that the figure that follows the 

referenced paragraph, rather than the one that precedes it, supports the 

percentages in question. We also changed the text to make it clearer 

that the responding communities we refer to in the paragraph are a 

combination of cities and counties that rated federal agencies’ 

compliance with urban relocation policy.

3. While we recognize that all federal agencies are responsible for 

carrying out the laws and executive orders that apply to locating 

federal facilities, GSA is the agency responsible for administering the 

executive orders. Therefore, we changed the report to clarify GSA’s 

responsibility.
Page 152 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix XIV

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development ApendxXiIV

Note: GAO’s comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the 

end of this appendix.
Appendix XIV

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development

Page 153 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix XIV

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development

Page 154 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

See comment 3.
Appendix XIV

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development

Page 155 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

The following are GAO’s comments on the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s (HUD) letter dated July 26, 2000.

GAO’s Comments 1. We agree that there are close interrelationships among these issues and 

also broader policy implications. However, a further discussion about 

how infrastructure investment will guide development in the United 

States in the decades ahead, as well as additional discussion about 

balancing the need for new infrastructure with the need to maintain 

aging infrastructure, was beyond the scope of our review.

2. In response to HUD’s comments, we changed the report to distinguish 

the community reinvestment programs most frequently cited as helpful 

by local officials. We also added HUD’s response to local governments’ 

appeal for increased flexibility of community reinvestment programs.

3. We agree that the relationship between land use and transportation 

decisions is an inherently local issue. Our report does not suggest that 

federal opportunities to encourage greater consistency between these 

decisions necessarily means that increased federal requirements are 

needed. We agree that there are additional challenges associated with 

this and each of the federal opportunities we cite, but we did not 

attempt to enumerate them all. 
Page 156 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix XV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiXV

Note: GAO's comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end 

of this appendix.
Appendix XV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 157 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

See comment 1.
Appendix XV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 158 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.
Appendix XV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 159 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

See comment 6.
Appendix XV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 160 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's 

(DOI) letter dated July 25, 2000.

GAO's Comments 1. Our report recognizes that the federal government can influence local 

growth and development in areas where it owns substantial land. In its 

comments, the Interior provided several examples of how the federal 

government can influence local growth issues, particularly in the West. 

Therefore, we added a reference in the letter to some of the resources 

that the Department makes available to local communities in areas 

where federal land management influences local growth issues. 

2. We added a reference to the Fish and Wildlife Service's National 

Wetlands Inventory in the letter.

3. See comment 2.

4. We added USGS to our list of abbreviations.

5. We changed the report to better reflect how funds from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund are used.

6. We discussed this comment with an official in the Interior's Office of 

Budget. She agreed that our discussion of funding for the state grants 

program, as originally presented, was accurate. She suggested several 

clarifications, which we incorporated.
Page 161 GAO/RCED-00-178 Local Growth Issues

Appendix XVI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxXiVI

GAO Contacts Stanley J. Czerwinski, (202) 512-7631

Steve Cohen, (202) 512-4864

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Carolyn Boyce, Kathy Carey, Alice 

Feldesman, Libby Halperin, Alexander Lawrence, Jr., Donna Lucas, Signora 

May, John McGrail, and Paige Smith made key contributions to this report.

(385830) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00