It's very likely Growth Management Challenges will be decided Behind Closed Doors

The state board, (Growth Management Hearing Board) in its Monday decision, (February 1, 2010) mentioned the possibility of a settlement, saying the issue of whether the update complies with the law "will most certainly be addressed unless the parties enter into fruitful settlement negotiations." Ruling

Fruitful settlement negotiations -- which really means "hidden negotiations" between the parties of record and Whatcom County. Negotiations that take place in closed Executive Session. Far away from the prying eyes of watchful taxpayers.



A recent study conducted by an organization named carryingcapcity.org found that taxpayers pay between $12,600 and $24,000 for each person added to U.S. population. The study was based on a 1998 Oregon study that quantifies costs for nine growth-related facilities and conservatively concludes that a typical new household in Oregon generates public costs of $33,259 and $16,301 per  individual respectively. (These factors reflect local price differences in labor, materials, and equipment).

The report is titled "Beyond Sprawl: The Cost of Population Growth to Local Communities." It is available from Carrying Capacity Network (free to the media and $12 to the general public) and contains costs for 730 municipalities across the nation.

Another study, The Cost of Growth in Washington State reports that the "total cost of providing infrastructure to serve new growth is based primarily on actual cost data from recent capital projects around the state." It is important to note that all costs evaluated are off-site costs. "A typical new subdivision includes local streets, sidewalks, water and sewer lines to serve each lot. These are on-site costs and are the site development costs typically paid directly by the land developer. By contrast, off-site costs are for schools, sewage treatment plants, arterial streets, fire stations and other off-site facilities."

Result?

Fodor reports that the total cost to the public sector in Washington State (to provide the nine categories of infrastructure) is approximately $83,000 per single-family house.

Here's the breakdown:

Transportation -- $56,000
Schools -- $9,800
Electric power and distribution facilities -- $8,100
Parks -- $6,000

In some communities, a small fraction of these costs are paid by impact fees. In communities that charge impact fees, fees average about $2,500 per new house, reducing the net cost to the local community to $80,000.

Fodor estimates that Washington's annual residential infrastructure cost is about $2.87 Billion (2000 figures).

Many of these costs are not paid directly but are manifesting themselves in declining levels of service within the state. (Easily observed at any of our local council meetings).

Growth raises the tax burden on established residents because the cost of expanding and building new publicly funded infrastructure and facilities is much greater than the tax and assessment contributions of new residents or the contribution of private developers.

Who are the parties of record?

In a recent Bellingham Herald article Jared Paben identifies the following parties in the latest round of Growth Management Hearings Board filings.

Caitac USA, a landowner that's proposing a major mixed-use development north of Bellingham but needs urban growth area status to do it.•

Trillium Corp., a local development company that had significant land removed from urban growth area status.

City of Blaine.

Whatcom County Fire District No. 14, which has concerns about the ability to serve the Columbia Valley urban growth area in the Mount Baker foothills.

Yew Street Associates, Hillside Associates, Westpac Management, Frank and Sandra Muljat and J and M LLC, landowners in the Yew Street Road area north of Lake Padden but in the lake's watershed. The county removed urban growth area there.

Beachmont LLC and Windward Consulting LLC, property owners near Blaine that had urban growth area removed.

Anchor Manor LLC, property owners near Birch Bay that had urban growth area removed.

Cities of Ferndale, Sumas and Nooksack

To date, Whatcom County has not revealed the estimated cost of taxpayer contributions in regards to off-site  infrastructure or facilities for proposed developments like CAITAC or Trillium in West Blaine.

 Nor do I expect to see the new council address this issue, as the list of interested parties includes some of their big dollar campaign contributors!

Why do I continue to raise this issue?

"Policy makers," Fodor notes, "could act to remove these subsidies so that growth pays it's own way and is not a burden on the taxpayers in a community."

In closing, Mr. Crawford, what is my personal tax liability for proposed UGAs. Is it $12,600  or $33,000 to subsidize private developers? And, how much have I shelled out for past projects over the last 30 years, because the county and cities refuse to deal with this issue?

Oh, that's right... it's only nickels and dimes!

Documents for review: (Jared has links to the parties GMHB filings at the bottom of his article).

Growth Management Hearings Board's Ruling

Fodor's Report Copies of the full report can be ordered for a nominal charge at http://www.fodorandassociates.com/

Article titled, Hidden Public Subsidies Spur Costly Growth and Sprawl

Article titled, The $13,500 Per Person Hidden Cost of Sprawl

Prototype Fiscal Land Use Analysis in Barnstable, MASS

Brett Bonner/CAPR testimony to Whatcom County  on UGA's (Authored by the Whatcom County Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Washington and Ron Reimer).