My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:27:53 AM
Creation date
5/23/2017 10:30:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/06/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
522
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Community Associations, Hazard Mitigation, <br />and Development Regulation <br />By Tyler P. Berding and Joseph DeAngelis <br />Common -interest community associations, including home owner associations <br />(HOAs), condominium associations, and housing cooperatives, play a critical role in <br />the maintenance of local infrastructure. <br />Over the past few decades, a growing number <br />of cities and counties have delegated the <br />responsibility for long-term maintenance of <br />common infrastructure associated with new <br />residential development to community as- <br />sociations. This often includes maintenance <br />of common open space and may include <br />maintenance of private streets and sidewalks, <br />stormwater facilities, or other infrastructure <br />that plays a role in hazard mitigation. <br />For healthy and stable associations, <br />requiring home owners to maintain their own <br />common open space can reduce the fiscal <br />burden on the local government. But do com- <br />munity associations have the expertise to <br />manage complex critical infrastructure such <br />as levees, retention basins, and stormwater <br />infrastructure? What about cases where com- <br />munity associations fail? Are cities and coun- <br />ties ready, willing, or able to assume control <br />over long -neglected infrastructure? <br />This article will: (1) lay out the increasing <br />role that community associations play in the <br />maintenance of critical disaster mitigation <br />infrastructure; (2) provide an overview of the <br />risks of delegating maintenance responsibili- <br />ties to community associations; (3) discuss <br />the role of performance guarantees in the de- <br />velopment process and their impact on long- <br />term infrastructure maintenance; (4) make <br />recommendations for local development regu- <br />lations to ensure that community associations <br />Owners in gated subdivisions typically assume full responsibility for <br />maintaining private streets, common open areas, and any stormwater <br />or flood control infrastructure. <br />are capable of tong -term disaster mitigation <br />infrastructure maintenance; and (5) present <br />three examples that potentially illustrate "bet- <br />ter" practices in dealing with community as- <br />sociation responsibilities for critical disaster <br />mitigation infrastructure maintenance. <br />THE INCREASING ROLE OF COMMUNITY <br />ASSOCIATIONS IN HAZARD MITIGATION <br />What is different today from subdivisions built <br />four or more decades ago is that most will be <br />built and incorporated as community associa- <br />tions. In many cases, the engineered facilities <br />to protect these developments from storms, <br />rising tides, and sea levels will not be main- <br />tained by cities or states, but will be the re- <br />sponsibility of the home owners who live there. <br />Since the early 196os, community as- <br />sociations have served as surrogates for cities <br />and counties to manage new infrastructure. To <br />conserve tax dollars that would otherwise be <br />necessary to maintain streets, parks, and pub- <br />lic utilities in new developments, many local <br />governments shifted fiscal responsibility for <br />that infrastructure to the small group of owners <br />living within that new subdivision. The com- <br />munity association provided a useful way for <br />developers to entice municipalities to approve <br />their projects —generating new tax dollars with- <br />out the consequent public works expense. <br />Statutes in most states and hundreds of <br />municipal ordinances provide the authority <br />for this shift. They cover the gamut from what <br />is required in the governing documents to <br />how a community association is to maintain <br />the resulting infrastructure. They generally <br />assume that the financial wherewithal and <br />necessary expertise will follow. These as- <br />sumptions might be untrue, but that <br />misunderstanding is usually not corrected by <br />the enabling ordinances. Statutes and ordi- <br />ZONINGPRACTICE 3.17 <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.