It’s time to talk, again, about an APFO

Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance: The name itself is as snooze-inducing as a shot of Benadryl.

Often shortened to APFO, which isn’t much better, it has the government-jargon sound of something best not discussed at the dinner table.

But APFO was the dinner topic this spring when Sarah Keifer, director of planning services for Kent County, spoke before the 20th Representative District Democratic Committee. (District 20 includes Milton and Lewes and is represented by Steve Smyk, R-Milton.)

An APFO, according to Wikipedia, is a way of tying infrastructure to growth. This is usually accomplished by charging developers a certain amount per building to pay for things like roads, schools and emergency medical services.

Barbara Vaughan, formerly of Lewes City Council and currently of the Lewes Planning Commission, introduced the topic and speaker by talking about a “flurry of interest” that surrounded drafting an APFO in 2008.

It didn’t last long. New Sussex County Council members came in, the county’s certified planner left (and was not replaced) and the “flurry of interest” was much like a snow flurry: brief and not amounting to much.

But now, Vaughan said, “It’s time to start the conversation again.”

Kent County’s experience with an APFO began about the same time as Sussex County’s first effort. Unlike Sussex, Kent managed to pass its APFO (actually a series of measures) in 2007.

It was a rocky start.

“We promptly ended up in litigation,” Keifer said, as developers pushed back against the new rules. The courtroom battle lasted four years. The result: The county finally won and “a lot of lawyers got rich.”

Kent County’s APFO covers four areas: water, paramedics or EMS, roads and schools.

The first two were easy.

In Kent County, if a subdivision has more than 10 lots, Keifer said, “Thou shalt have public water. You won’t have wells.” It’s a commandment.

The EMS portion helps pay for that service, coming to about $60 per unit. It’s paid for at the same time as the building permit.

In Sussex, said Gina Jennings, county finance director, the paramedics are paid for through the realty transfer tax.

Then, you might say, the rubber meets the road, or roads.

Roads are a big problem in Delaware, which you may have noticed if you are a reasonably observant person above the age of 2. One reason: counties control land use, or development; the state controls the roads. The result: a disconnect.

The county has a financial incentive to approve developments - and gain tax revenue - while not having to bear the financial burden of building roads to serve them.

The situation, Keifer said, can make it “difficult for the land- use agencies to get a comprehensive understanding of the impact of new development on the infrastructure.”

In Kent, this situation began coming to a head about 10 years ago. “In 2005 and 2006, we were seeing a lot of development,” Keifer said, “and our public hearings were filled with residents saying ‘Our roads can’t handle it.’”

Kent County’s APFO approaches this problem by establishing acceptable “levels of service” for roads, with grades “A” through “F.”

In areas where the county encouraged development, basically along the routes 1, 13 and 113 corridors, the minimum level of service is “D,” as rated by how much time drivers have to wait at intersections.

“D” might not sound very good, but that’s for peak hours only.

In areas where Kent discouraged development, where for example it did not plan to build sewers, the minimum level of service was “C.”

The county, Keifer said, also established thresholds that would trigger a Traffic Impact Study before a development was approved.

None of this, of course, brings in money to help build and maintain roads. But it does offer a framework for Kent County officials to get a better understanding of the impact of their decisions.

It also helps the county negotiate with the state as far making the needed road improvements to accommodate new development.

Finally, Kent’s APFO requires payments from developers based on the expected number of students new housing will bring to the school districts.

The payments, Keifer said, don’t come close to compensating school districts for the expense of new construction - which is $34,700 per student - but it does help offset the cost. The rest, of course, still comes from taxpayers, whether through the state or from district residents themselves through referendums.

On thing that Keifer found was that developers were more accepting of a payment if it was framed as a “surcharge” as opposed to an “impact fee.”

It’s something to consider since, as Keifer said, it’s important to get some developers on board early.

Establishing an APFO in Sussex won’t be easy, but, as Barbara Vaughan said, it’s time to start the conversation.


Don Flood is a former newspaper editor living near Lewes. He can be reached at floodpolitics@gmail.com.